1951-12-03

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. F. Macdonald (Edmonlon East)
presented the second report of the standing committee on industrial relations, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to be able to announce to the house that an agreement has been signed with the government of Ontario respecting the development of hydro power in the international rapids section of the St. Lawrence river. I now table two copies of the agreement which will of course have to be submitted for approval both by parliament and by the legislature of Ontario. As hon. members will have ample opportunity to consider its provisions at a later date, I will make only a brief statement now as to its general form and purposes.
The agreement with Ontario has been concluded in the expectation that the United States will not participate in the seaway project, and it has been drawn up on the understanding that the navigation works will be undertaken by the federal government and will be entirely within Canada. It contemplates that Ontario will undertake the power development concurrently with an appropriate agency in the United States.
In such circumstances it is desirable that a firm agreement exist between Canada and Ontario in order that Canadian treaty obligations be fulfilled and that other interests in Canada should be safeguarded.
The undertakings on behalf of Ontario are broadly to develop the power resources of the international rapids section of the St. Lawrence river concurrently with an appropriate authority in the United States in accordance with the plan known as the "controlled single stage project (238-242)". This
is the same plan as was advanced and made part of the great lakes-St. Lawrence basin agreement of 1941 between Canada and the United States. However, the agreement provides that this plan may be modified as may be agreed upon between Canada and Ontario.
The Canadian government, for its part, undertakes to do all in its power to obtain the approval of the international joint commission to an application to be made by Ontario in an acceptable form for authority from that international body to construct the necessary works. Under the boundary waters treaty of 1909 this approval would be necessary since the international rapids section of the St. Lawrence river is a boundary water. Canada's undertaking in this respect is qualified, however, to the extent that its action must be consistent with its obligations under the boundary waters treaty and that regard must be had for all Canadian interests in the St. Lawrence river.
Some of the other more important provisions may be enumerated briefly:
1. Canada will transfer to Ontario the administration of such lands belonging to Canada as are required for the project, and Ontario will pay compensation for these except for lands or property forming part of the existing canal system.
2. Ontario will transfer to Canada the administration of such lands belonging to Ontario as are specified by Canada as being required for works to carry a deep waterway in the international rapids section.
3.	Ontario will establish a commission to safeguard and enhance scenic beauty and historic associations in the section to whatever extent may be appropriate.
It is recognized that before all the arrangements are consummated, as contemplated in this agreement, the great lakes-St. Lawrence basin agreement of 1941 between Canada and the United States may be approved by congress and by parliament. In that event, it would be the intention of the government to reconsider with the government of Ontario the terms of the agreement signed today and to modify them in recognition of the arrangements that would then exist between Canada and the United States with respect to the seaway project.
1504	HOUSE OF
Defence Production-Security Measures DEFENCE PRODUCTION



INDUSTRIAL PERSONNEL-NATIONAL SECURITY MEASURES

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I should like to make a statement with respect to the security measures that have to be taken in connection with defence contracts. The hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) spoke in the debate on the address on Wednesday, November 28, of this matter, which is of general concern, and about which I think hon. members might wish to have a statement from the government. It has to do with the problem of safeguarding secret information in industries engaged on defence production.
The hon. member referred to the case of a Mr. George R. Jackson who was recently released from employment by the A. V. Roe Company. Mr. Jackson's case is currently being reviewed and I do not intend to deal with it now. It is the general problem about which I wish to say something.
I think the hon. member for York West has done a service in bringing this matter forward in the serious way he did. The government has to deal with a lot of difficult and unpleasant problems in the conditions of today and of these one of the most difficult, and certainly one of the most unpleasant, is trying to assess the reliability of people who deal or may have to deal with vital defence matters.
As a part of our defence program, contracts have to be placed for the production of various types of equipment, and in many cases this involves the use of details of a highly secret character; secrets which in many cases belong as much to other governments as to our own. Now there are people both in this country and outside who are very anxious to obtain such secrets and who are making constant efforts to find out as much about them as they can. It is, accordingly, vital that no risks be taken which can be reasonably avoided with the security of such defence items. The government is responsible for protecting their secrecy in so far as this country is concerned.
For that reason, any company entering into a contract for the production of defence equipment in Canada must agree that it will exclude from access to secret material any persons about whose reliability the government has any serious doubt. This means that in cases where an individual's background, particularly any associations with communist or pro-communist organizations, or his present associations or even, in some cases, some instability or other qualities of character


raise doubts as to the security of secret matters placed in his hands, then that person must not be allowed access to any secret or vital defence items. It is not possible to give the individual the benefit of the doubt. Reliability for security is not the sort of thing about which conclusive proof one way or the other is usually possible. Sometimes it is, but more often it is a matter of judgment based on all the information that is available. Where the national security is involved, the government simply cannot take the position that defence secrets are to be available to everyone against whom a cut and dried case cannot be made.
The reliability of the overwhelming majority of industrial employees in Canada is beyond doubt. In the case of the few who cannot be said with certainty to be reliable, the government has always to consider two things: the need to avoid doing any injury to an individual and the protection of material vital to the security of this country.
In cases where it is considered that the security of secret material might be endangered by giving a particular individual access to it, the company employing him is informed that such access cannot be allowed. The company is not instructed to dismiss him. I want particularly to emphasize this because there have been statements to the contrary both in the Jackson case and on other occasions. Neither the Department of Defence Production nor any other agency of the government has instructed a company to dismiss an employee for security reasons. A decision that a person should not be entrusted with secret information is not a decision that he is disloyal, and it does not mean that he should be dismissed. It simply means what I have said-that he should not have access to secret information.
There are usually positions in a plant that do not involve security, and transfers to them can be made. It may happen that in some plants which are engaged wholly on defence work such transfers are impossible, for one reason or another. In those cases the company is faced with the choice of releasing the individual or giving up its contract. These are the most difficult cases to handle. It may be that in all instances companies have not done their utmost to find means of making transfers. The importance of always doing so is being brought to their attention. Employers should always try to avoid dismissals if at all possible. They have a duty not to increase the difficulties or disabilities of persons whose only misfortune is that their

reliability is open to question. It is very important that such persons should not be branded as disloyal.
What I want to make clear, however, is that the decision of the government is solely whether it can or cannot risk the security of some vital matter by allowing a particular person to have access to it.- It is up to the employing company to decide what to do about the particular employees who cannot be allowed access to the secret material.
I have dealt thus far with the nature of the problem and the character of the task that the government attempts to perform in protecting the security of defence production. The procedure in handling the matter is also a problem.
The hon. member for York West suggested, as others commenting on this matter have suggested, that there should be a board or panel to hear representations from individuals before decisions are taken as to their reliability for security. This suggestion appeals to most fair-minded people because it seems to accord with the general principles on which we proceed in dealing with charges or claims against a man in criminal or civil law and in other instances. There are, however, particular considerations that have to be weighed on the other side.
In the first place, the assessment of the reliability of a person does not necessarily, or even usually, involve anything that could be regarded as "charges" against him. Decisions on reliability are taken every day in the public service and, indeed, in business and in almost every sort of organization. Most hon. members will at one time or another have been in a position where they have to decide whether they could or could not rely on a particular person in some important matter.
The only thing that distinguishes the cases I am talking about is that in defence production, and more particularly in the development stage of defence production, some methods and processes are of enormous importance and their betrayal could do injury to the whole nation. Reliability is more critically important than in most other circumstances. The question at issue is not guilt or innocence of some particular charge. The sole question is whether a certain person can or cannot be entrusted' with secret defence material. It would give a completely false atmosphere to the matter if it were assumed that reliability can somehow be put beyond doubt by meeting formal charges-or indeed, that reliability cannot be brought into doubt except on the basis of formal charges. Assessment of character may be the only consideration in
Defence Production-Security Measures some instances. That is not a matter of charges, or of trial or of proof. It is a matter of judgment.
A second consideration to be borne in mind is that in dealing with reliability in defence production we are not in the realm of what have come to be called "human rights" and "fundamental freedoms". There is no human right or fundamental freedom involved. No person has a right of access to secret defence items, and no man's freedom is infringed when he is denied such access. In a particular case a company may decide that it has no place where it can employ a man who cannot be given access to defence matters. In such a case the man's job becomes involved. Where that is so, it is always possible for a company to ask that a case be reviewed to see if the decision cannot be reversed, and the government is always ready to make such a review. But in the last analysis, the question for the government and the question it must decide is whether it is or is not satisfied that there would be no risk to the security of some secret material or process by letting a certain person have access to it. No outside panel or board can take that responsibility. No matter how much the government might like to be relieved of this very unpleasant duty no government would have the right to shift to others the responsibility for the security of our defence secrets.
There is a further consideration of an entirely different order that is also relevant. It is that hearings could and probably would compromise our general security precautions. Some of the people about whose access to secret material we have to be most concerned operate in the interests of an organization that is skilfully and tightly bound together. This organization acts with a ruthlessness and a readiness to sacrifice its own followers, which we find it almost impossible to appreciate. It is only by careful, long continued and patient work that means have been established by our police forces of getting information about the operations of this organization. The organization would be more than ready to precipitate hearings involving their own followers, even if it meant the personal ruin of those individuals, if the hearings would lay bare the sources of information that the police have established. If hearings were held, the information as to the background or other considerations causing doubt about an individual would have to be revealed. I do not see how a "hearing" could be regarded as serving any purpose if that were not so. More than that, it would be argued that the validity of such information or the grounds for doubt could not be assessed nor could any "charges" be properly refuted unless the kind and sources

North Atlantic Treaty
of information were disclosed, the informants questioned, and so forth. If that were done in even two or three instances, they might be sufficient to nullify, in very short order, such security defences as we have been able to build up after years of painstaking effort. The well-organized opponents of our way of life would be more than ready to sacrifice a good many of their supporters to gain the kind of information that hearings would inevitably reveal.
For the reasons I have given, the government has thus far taken the view that no one has a valid claim to be given a hearing before he is denied access to secret defence material or processes of defence production. It has considered that a system of hearings should not be instituted. This means, of course, that the responsibility of the government is the greater to see thht every case is carefully assessed and that no decisions as to the reliability of an individual are lightly taken. They are not lightly taken. Moreover, the cases can always be re-examined and the government will have no reluctance about reversing an original decision if further review suggests that it can safely be reversed. This whole matter is, however, distorted and seen in a false light, if it is confused with loyalty and thought of in terms of specific, provable or disprovable charges. You can doubt the reliability of a man for the security of some vital defence matter without considering him to be disloyal. You can continue to doubt no matter how much he argues or protests.
The problem that is thrust on the government of assessing the reliability of employees in defence industries, and occasionally of deciding in some case that reliability is uncertain, is not a pleasant one. In the present state of things it is, however, an unavoidable one. It is the government itself which is and must be answerable for the security of our defence secrets. The government is, however, fully aware of the importance of ensuring in so far as possible that no injury is done to any individual through the decisions that must be taken. Security procedures are constantly under review, and if they can be improved, the government will always be ready to make the improvements and will always welcome and seriously consider constructive suggestions to that end.



NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY


Hon. Brooke Claxion (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, it is usual for a statement to be made in this house when a minister returns from an international conference of major importance. The eighth

meeting of the North Atlantic council concluded at Rome last week. This was the first meeting attended by the supreme commander, General Eisenhower, and the meeting met under the inspiration of his personality. At the conclusion of its business, the council of twelve nations agreed on a statement to be made public. Because of the nature of the meeting and of the business transacted there, and also because my colleagues, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), as well as myself, have not yet had an opportunity to report to the government, it is not possible to go into greater detail than is contained in this statement. For the convenience of hon. members, however, I should like to table a copy of the statement that was issued in Rome.
Canada's contribution to European defence-



REFERENCE TO STATEMENTS IN &quot;HANSARD&quot;

Brooke Claxton: Mr. Speaker, while during these last two weeks I have been out of sight here, apparently, judging from Hansard. I have not been entirely forgotten. I feel that at this time the house would expect from me a word of personal explanation of matters arising out of press reports published in my absence. I have read the Hansard references and most of the press reports, but I do not intend to enter into details-that has already been covered here-and I certainly do not mean to indulge in any recriminations. My real purpose is to assure the house that I had no intention of making announcements in Europe of new policies of which hon. members had not been informed in this chamber.
I made references to accommodation for our troops and to airfields, and no doubt those matters were much less familiar to some hon. members and members of the press than I had supposed; and it may be that there was some justification for a feeling that some kind of announcement of new policy had been made. I am sorry indeed if any answers I gave to questions created the impression that I was making important announcements outside the house. I have always tried to give the house all possible information on defence matters and, when the house is in session, to make all statements of major new developments and new policies in this chamber.
On looking over the reports, I think I can understand how the misunderstanding arose. As hon. members had been informed, the decision to dispatch the 27th Canadian infantry brigade group was not taken until the government had been assured that temporary accommodation was available. That temporary accommodation would have to be

replaced by new accommodation. It is a fact, not a policy, that troops must be housed. As for airfields for the use of our air squadrons, hon. members had already been informed that airfields were not available on the continent, and that pending their availability, Canadian squadrons would be stationed in the United Kingdom at North Luffenham. Consequently, it was known that airfields would have to be provided on the continent.
We knew also that, in accord with the policy that parliament had accepted that Canada should do its share in NATO, we would also have to participate in meeting the costs of infrastructure-to use that horrible expression. To me that appeared to be a statement of a situation, of a condition, of a fact, and not of a policy.
Indeed it was not possible for me to state a new policy because the government had not yet decided upon one; and the government had not yet decided upon policy because the North Atlantic treaty nations concerned had not and have not yet fully worked out an agreement as to precisely how this should be done or how the over-all costs should be shared. That is one of the matters we discussed on the other side and it is a matter that was under active discussion in connection with the Rome meeting, and it is still under the most active consideration at Paris.
There is also the question of working out arrangements for accommodation and other facilities in Germany when the occupation statute is converted into an agreement. This is under consideration by the three occupying powers and the German government today.
Consequently, it is not possible either to announce a policy or to give any details or estimates of the over-all costs that might be involved. Just as soon as firm arrangements are worked out with the other countries concerned, they will be announced.
Against this background I repeat that I am indeed sorry if any hon. member feels that I was discussing new policies of which the house had not been informed and I assure you, sir, I had no such intention. Now that the smoke has cleared from the atmosphere here and elsewhere, I must leave it to hon. members themselves to decide in the light of the real facts whether I did or not.


Mr. Graydon:: May I ask the minister if he is in a position to indicate what our commitments are with respect to military installations on the continent?


Brooke Claxton: No. I have just said that I am not.


Gordon Graydon: Then the press report of four or five airdromes and landing fields is incorrect?
North Atlantic Treaty


Brooke Claxton: We will need four or five airfields to furnish our eleven squadrons with flying facilities. We will also need housing accommodation. But how much will be needed, where it will be located or what it will cost, we are in no position to say today.


Mr. Green:: May I ask the minister this question? Is the construction or purchase to be at the cost of Canada?


Brooke Claxton: Of Canada?


Howard Charles Green: Yes.


Brooke Claxton: I am not in a position to say that. I can go this far and say that part of the cost will form part of the costs that will be shared by all North Atlantic treaty nations in accordance with an agreed formula. Part of it may have to be borne directly by us. Preliminary estimates of the most tentative character would indicate that whichever course is followed would not make much financial difference to us.


Howard Charles Green: Is Canada proceeding at once with the construction of barracks and the construction of airfields in Germany?


An hon. Member:: We are not in committee.


Brooke Claxton: I cannot go much further than I have gone, Mr. Speaker. We are at present occupying temporary accommodation for the 27th infantry brigade group in Germany. That will have to be relinquished at some future date and we will have to make arrangements for construction of accommodation for the brigade group in Germany. What those arrangements will be, who will do the construction, and how the payments will be made, remains to be worked out not only as between ourselves and the three occupying powers but as between the three occupying powers and Germany.


Howard Charles Green: What about airfields?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Brooke Claxton: The position with regard to airfields is similar, but there the probability is that all airfields will be located outside Germany and probably in France. Arrangements therefore will have to be made with SHAPE for the location and development of the airfields and the sharing of costs in so far as they are to be shared and then in all probability either through SHAPE or directly with the French government for accommodation.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the minister whether any request was made that Canada should increase her number of troops in Europe from a brigade to a division?


Brooke Claxton: I am not in a position to discuss that matter on this statement.
1508

Labour Conditions


Mr. Wright:: I should like to ask the minister a supplementary question. Does he expect that it will be possible to have a full discussion on this matter before the session ends?


Brooke Claxton: That will depend on the
course of discussions that are going on at Paris.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Paul E. Cote (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, in conformity with the provisions of article 19, subsection 5, of the constitution of the international labour organization, I desire to lay on the table the authentic text of the following conventions and recommendations which were adopted by the international labour conference at its 34th session held at Geneva in June, 1951, together with a copy of a letter from the deputy minister of justice setting out the legislative jurisdiction for each of these conventions and recommendations:
Convention No. 99 concerning minimum wage-fixing machinery in agriculture.
Convention No. 100 concerning equal remuneration for men and women workers for work of equal value.
Recommendation No. 89 concerning minimum wage-fixing machinery in agriculture.
Recommendation No. 90 concerning the question of equal remuneration for men and women workers for work of equal value.
Recommendation No. 91 concerning collective agreements.
Recommendation No. 92 concerning voluntary conciliation and arbitration.



DEFENCE EXPENDITURES


Mr. W. G. Weir (Portage-Neepawa) moved:: That the name of Mr. Quelch be substituted for that of Mr. Thomas; and
That the name of Mr. Wright be substituted for that of Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North) on the special committee on defence expenditures.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 32, an act to amend an act respecting the Revised Statutes of Canada.


Mr. Knowles:: Explain.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The purpose of this bill is to authorize the statute revision commission to prepare a supplementary volume as part of the new revised statutes to contain any statutes that may be enacted between the time of going to press and the time of the appearance of the newly revised statutes.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS


IMMIGRATION


Mr. Churchill:: 1.	Is the Department of Citizenship and Immigration operating a placement service for immigrants?
2.	Does the national employment service also operate a placement service for immigrants?
3.	Does the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, and also the Department of Labour, have officials in the field seeking places of employment for immigrants?
4.	If so, how many officials, and in what areas?
5.	What is the division of responsibility between the two departments in placing immigrants?
6.	Do the departments above-mentioned absorb the cost of movement of immigrants from the point of entry into Canada to the point of employment?
7.	Does the Department of Citizenship and Immigration or the Department of Labour seek co-operation of or consult with provincial governments in placing immigrants?


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: 1.	The Department of Citizenship and Immigration operates a settlement service for the purpose of locating and developing suitable opportunities for immigrants who come to Canada to settle on farms, or establish small businesses of their own. The department also helps immigrants secure employment, and handles applications from employers for immigrant workers.
2.	The facilities of the national employment service are available to, and used by, immigrant workers. Employment office officials keep in close touch with the hostels and assist in referring immigrant workers to prospective employers.
3.	See answers to Nos. 1 and 2.
4.	The immigration branch of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration has one settlement officer at each of the following locations:	Vancouver, Edmonton, Regina,
Winnipeg, London, Toronto, Montreal, Quebec and Halifax. These officers are assisted, as required, by immigration inspectors and other staff of the immigration branch throughout the dominion.
In national employment offices certain placement officials have the duty of keeping in close contact with employers in their area in order that they may advise the employers where workmen can be obtained to meet their needs. The total number of placement officers

in the national employment service varies, depending upon the season of the year. When the claim load is great the duties of the placement officers change in some instances and the staff of the unemployment insurance commission works as a unit as between duties applying to unemployment insurance and placement work. The total number of men and women engaged on placement work in Canada varies from approximately 900 to 1,200.
5.	The whole immigration movement is primarily the responsibility of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. This involves development of settlement opportunities in Canada, recruitment and selection overseas, admission, assistance in becoming established, and integration into Canadian society with attainment of full Canadian citizenship as the objective.
As stated in the answer to No. 1, the settlement service of the immigration branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration, locates and develops farm and business opportunities. The national employment service places immigrants brought in under group or bulk movements to meet general labour shortages, or the needs of employers who apply to the labour department for the admission of a number of workers. The facilities of both departments are available to the large body of immigrants, should they be seeking employment, thus placing a widespread placement or settlement service at their disposal. The whole operation is recognized as one which can best be carried out by the closest possible co-operation between the two departments. The facilities of the national employment service are available to immigrants as well as other residents of Canada.
6.	The department of citizenship has been authorized to provide for the absorption of the cost of inland rail transportation west of Winnipeg for immigrants who come to Canada under the assisted passage loan scheme who remain for one year in the class of employment for which they were selected.
The Department of Labour absorbs the cost of inland transportation for immigrant domestics, and farm workers who are brought forward in group movements.
7.	Yes.




Mr. Churchill:: With reference to immigrants entering Canada since January 1. 1951, and by country of origin:
1.	How many paid their own fare?
2.	How many had their fare paid by the international refugee organization?
3.	How many had fares paid by sponsors in Canada?
4.	How many received assisted passage loans?
Questions
5.	How many were brought in under group movements by (a) the Department of Citizenship and Immigration: (b) the Department of Labour?
6.	How many immigrants entered Canada who did not fall into any of the above classes?


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: (To September 30, 1951)
1.	82,700.
2.	18,844.
3.	15,287 (prepaid passages).
4.	6,202.
5.	Group movements include bulk movements to meet a general shortage of labour, and applications from employers for a specific number of workers. Such applications from employers may be made to the Department of Labour or the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, but with the exception of those admissible classes covered by sections I, 2 and 3 of order in council P.C. 2856, dated 9 June, 1950, they are cleared with the other department before being approved. It is not possible to divide the total group movement to indicate the number "brought in" by either department, but the total is 14,564. Most of these immigrants could be considered as having been brought in under the auspices of the Department of Labour.
6.	6,852 (not falling within classes 1 to 4 inclusive. The group movement figures are included in the other answers).
Note: With the consent of the member the various parts have not been broken down into countries of origin.




Mr. Churchill:: 1.	Do sponsored or nominated immigrants sign an agreement to take directed employment?
2.	H so, of those who have signed agreements to take directed employment, how many have carried out their agreements under the following categories with respect to the years 1949, 1950, 1951 (a) skilled machinists; (b) bush workers; (c) mine workers; (d) farm workers; (e) domestic workers; (f) other categories?
3.	How many in the above categories have been brought in by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, and how many by the Department of Labour, since January 1, 1951?
4.	Is refusal or failure to carry out an agreement to take directed employment a deportable offence and, if not, is there any other penalty?
5.	Are the penalties exacted? If so, in how many cases for each of the years 1949, 1950 and 1951?
6.	Has the Department of Labour followed the practice of demanding $150 (less $12.50 a month worked on contract) from d.p.'s in directed employment? If so, under what authority has this been done?
7.	Has the Department of Citizenship and Immigration followed the practice indicated in (6) above?
8.	How many cases have occurred in (6) and (7) above?

Questions


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: 1.	No.
2 to 5. Not applicable in view of answer to No. 1.
6.	Yes. When arrangements were first made in 1947 with the international refugee organization for the group movement of displaced persons it was provided that workers who failed to fulfil their voluntary undertaking to the Minister of Labour would be required as a deterrent to pay $150 less a credit of $12.50 for each month which they did work in accordance with the voluntary undertaking.
7.	D.p.'s who came forward in bulk movements to directed employment have all been handled by the Department of Labour.
8.	(6) 1949-50, 445; 1950-51, 155; 1951-52, 59; (7) not applicable.



FILM BOARD-&quot;HOW TO BUILD AN IGLOO&quot;

Mr. Charlion:: 1.	What was the total cost for the production of the national film board picture, "How to Build an Igloo?"
2.	What distribution has there been on this film to date?


Mr. Winters:: 1.	$2,831.01.
2.	This film was made from purchased footage and released early in 1950. Prints placed in circulation are as follows: Canada, non-theatrical and circuit prints-69; abroad, through various non-commercial channels- 61. In addition 96 prints of the film have
been sold in Canada and abroad. Audience totals are reported only in respect to nontheatrical distribution in Canada, the total to August 31, 1951, being 242,345. This film is also in active circulation on a contract with Times Television Inc., New York, through television channels in the U.S.A., and has been televised on 12 stations to date.



ARMED FORCES


Mr. Caiherwood:: 1.	What has been the total combined enlistments in the three branches of the armed services for the first ten months of 1951?
2.	Of this number, how many have been discharged from military service during the same period?
3.	What proportion of the above-mentioned enlistments were for the army?


Mr. Claxton:: 1.	32,817.
2.	1,978.
3.	56.5 per cent.



INDUSTRIAL AND OFFICE WORKERS


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Has the government any statistics as to the number of (a) industrial workers; (b) office workers now on (i) a five-day week; (ii) a five and a half day week; (iii) a six-day week?
2.	If so, what are the numbers of each of the above groups of workers who are working for each of the periods indicated above?


Mr. Cote (Verdun-La Salle):: 1.	Yes.
2.
Distribution of plant and office employees working a five-day and more than five-day week based on 1950 Department of Labour survey.
Industries	Plant Workers	Office Workers	Total covered by Dept, of Labour survey	Total in industry (labour force survey)5-day week	Week of more than 5 days	5-day week	Week of more than 5 days	Manufacturing	468,000	256,000	94,000	41,000	859,000	1,261,000Trade	34,000	107,000	13,000	40,000	194,000	518,0004,000	31,000	35,000	781,00021,000	49,000	70,000	78,00010,000	67,000	77,000	96,000Totals	537,000	510,000	107,000	81,000	1,235,000	2,734,000
Note: The Department of Labour annual survey is based on returns made by approximately 16,000 establishments having 15 or more employees, each.
The extent to w'hieh the five-day week applies to workers not covered by this survey is not known.
Complete statistics are not available on workers in construction, transportation or in agriculture. In transportation there are approximately 155,000 workers in steam railways on the five-day wreek, while in agriculture there are more than 100,000 paid wrorkers, very few of whom are on the five-day week.
[Mr. Churchill.!

Questions
PURCHASE OF SEMINARY FOR USE OF R.C.M.P.	WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCE APPLICATIONS


Mr. Hodgson:: 1.	Has the government purchased the seminary in the vicinity of Overbrook for the use of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?
2.	If so, how much was paid, and what were the terms of purchase?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


Mr. Brooks:: 1.	How many applications for war veterans allowance were (a) received; (b) granted; (c) rejected, in each of the eighteen district offices (W.V.A.) between dates October 1, 1950, to October 1, 1951?
2.	Of those rejected (a) how many were appealed to the war veterans allowance board from each district; (b) how many subsequently granted by the board from each district?


Mr. Mulch:: 1 and 2.	October 1, 1950 to September 30, No. of applications	1951	No. of rejections	(a)	(b)	(c)	(a)	(b)District Centre	received	granted rejected	appealed	grantedSt. John's, Nfld	
246	159	174	47	12Charlottetown, P.E.I. .	
117	66	43	18	-Halifax, N.S	
586	327	259	103	15Saint John, N.B	
422	287	253	86	14Quebec, Que	
162	79	48	8	2Montreal, Que	
854	531	283	42	7Ottawa, Ont	
319	180	125	27	2Kingston, Ont	
299	227	91	23	6Toronto, Ont	
1,403	935	625	47	4Hamilton, Ont	
500	318	177	15	3London-, Ont	
532	407	182	21	3North Bay, Ont	
191	148	72	10	2Winnipeg, Man	
757	509	204	38	6Regina, Sas-k	
178	147	43	15	1Saskatoon, Sask	
180	131	52	13	Calgary, Alta	
239	205	76	20	7Edmonton, Alta	
347	247	114	13	3Vancouver, B.C	
1,244	1,320	390	66	17Victoria, B.C	
368	391	101	15	5Total 	
8,944	6,614	3,312	627	109
Note. To complement the figures given In answer to part 1 and part 2 (a) it is
necessary to give the following additional information:
Part 1. Applications in process October 1, 1950	 2,722
Applications received October 1, 1950, to September 30, 1951 ..	8^944	11,666Applications withdrawn	or	ineligible	
708Applications granted	
6,614Applications rejected	
3,312Applications in process	September	30, 1951	
1,032	11,666
Part 2. (a) 50 cases which have been- appealed were in process on September 30, 1951.



MR. ROY G. PEERS

Mr. Hodgson:: 1.	Has Roy G. Peers of the city of Montreal, Quebec, been named vice-president of Canadian Commercial Corporation?
2.	Where is the said Roy G. Peers presently located, and what are his duties?
3.	Is the said Roy G. Peers and one R. G. Peers, named as vice-president of the Ming Sung Industrial Company of Canada Limited, one and the same person?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Mr. Peers is located in Washington. He was appointed to facilitate the integration of the Canadian and United States defence production effort and to make known in appropriate quarters in the United States the availability of productive facilities in Canada for defence work.

Questions
3.	Yes. Mr. Peers severed his connection with the Ming Sung Industrial Company of Canada as of August 1, 1951.



PERMITS FOR BUTTER IMPORT

Mr. Fraser:: 
Mr. Mcllraith:: F. Griffin, Board of Trade building, Montreal, P.Q.; Loblaw Groceterias Co., Ltd., Fleet and Bathurst streets, Toronto, Ont.; Lovell & Christmas (Canada) Ltd., 160 King street, Montreal, P.Q.; Olive & Dorion Ltd., 722 St. Paul street, Montreal, P.Q.



SUBSIDIES TO PACKERS OF APPLE JUICE

Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	Have any subsidies been paid, advanced or promised to be paid, during the present year, to packers of apple juice?
2.	If so, what are the names of the companies that will benefit and what is the amount of the anticipated expenditure during the current year?


Mr. Gardiner:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



C.P.R. AND C.N.R., SASKATCHEWAN-MILEAGE AND GRAIN TRANSPORTATION, ETC.

Mr. Helme:: 1.	What mileage of railway in the province of Saskatchewan is owned and operated by (a) Canadian Pacific Railway: (b) Canadian National Railways?
2.	What country elevator storage space in the province of Saskatchewan is located on (a) Canadian Pacific Railway; (b) Canadian National Railways?
3.	How many bushels of wheat, oats, barley, rye and flax were moved from country elevators in the province of Saskatchewan to terminal elevators, during the period August 1, 1951, to October 31, 1951, by (a) Canadian Pacific Railway; (b) Canadian National Railways?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1.	(a) and (b).
Single track mileage in province of Saskatchewan, end of 1950; Operated by Canadian Pacific Railway 4,520 miles; Owned by Canadian Pacific Railway 4,329 miles. Operated by Canadian National Railways 4,411 miles; Owned by Canadian National Railways 4,410 miles.
2.	Elevator storage space in the province of Saskatchewan is located on (a) Canadian Pacific Railway 76,520,400 bushels; (b) Canadian National Railways 73,839,000 bushels.
3.	Adjusted car loadings in the province of Saskatchewan for the period August 1, 1951, to October 31, 1951 are as follows:
(a)	Canadian Pacific Railway:	Wheat
19,537 carloads; other grains 4,310 carloads.
IMr. Mcllraith.]
(b)	Canadian National Railways: Wheat 21,041 carloads; other grains 4,171 carloads.
The railway companies compile their returns by railway districts which in some cases overlap provincial boundaries. These figures have been adjusted by the board of grain commissioners and should be considered as an estimate.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


MANITOBA AND BRITISH COLUMBIA FLOODS


Mr. Low:: 1.	How much did the Department of National Defence charge the province of Manitoba for assistance provided by that department, during the flood of 1950?
2.	Was the bill paid by the province of Manitoba? If so, when?
3.	How much did the Canadian government pay to the province of Manitoba as a grant to assist the province in meeting the expenditures involved in the 1950 flood?
4.	How much did the Department of National Defence charge the province of British Columbia for assistance provided by that department, during the flood of 1949?
5.	Was the bill paid by the province of British Columbia? If so, when?
6.	How much did the Canadian government pay to the province of British Columbia as a grant to assist the province in meeting the expenditures involved in the 1949 flood?



MAINTENANCE OF LAURIER HOUSE AND KINGSMERE

Mr. Hodgson:: 1.	How much money was bequeathed by the late Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King for the maintenance of Laurier house and Kingsmere?
2.	What is the cost monthly of maintaining each establishment including light, heat, telephone and staff?
3.	Who are employed by the government on each property, what is the salary of each, and their office hours?
4.	How much money was spent on each of the said properties since they have been taken over by the government?



AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS

Mr. Wright:: 1.	What was the ceiling price, support price and average market price of the following agricultural products in the period 1943, 1944, 1945 (a) eggs; (b) cheese; (c) butter; (d) whole milk; (e) hogs; (f) apples; (g) potatoes?
2.	Are there floor prices established for any of these products today?
3.	If so, what are these floor prices?


Mr. Sinclair:: This question asks for the
ceiling price of a number of commodities. In the years in question the wartime prices and trade board had a great number of ceiling prices on these goods depending on the locality and time of the year. I have discussed the question with the hon. member; he has agreed that he does not want

a great deal of clerical work to be done, and has agreed to drop the request for the ceiling prices. Otherwise, the question is an order for return.


Mr. Speaker:: Order for return.



REPORTED CRUELTY IN TREATMENT OF CANADIAN MISSIONARIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I should like
to direct an inquiry to the Prime Minister, notice of which I gave him earlier in the day. Is he in a position to say what official word has been received as to the reportedly harsh and cruel treatment being accorded to Canadian missionaries in red China?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Unfortunately, I am not in a
position to give any information about the events that have been reported in the press as having taken place over the last two or three days. It will be remembered that on April 16 the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) made a statement in the house regarding the situation of five Canadian sisters of the Immaculate Conception who had been arrested by the Chinese communists in Canton. It was at that time hoped that representations made by the United Kingdom charge d'affaires in Peking on their behalf as well as on behalf of other Canadian citizens held in custody would bring an improvement in their condition. Well, we are informed that no such improvement occurred, and the charge d'affaires made further strong representations to the Peking government on September 1, and on September 10, when parliament was not in session, the department issued a press release. Perhaps it might help if for the convenience of hon. members I tabled a copy of the press release containing the information that was available up to that time.
During the past two days news services have carried stories of the formal prosecution and sentencing of the five nuns at so-called public trials on December 1. According to these reports, Sister St. Alphonse du Redempteur, (Antoinette Couvrette, bom at Ste. Dorothee, Quebec) and Sister Marie-Germaine (Germaine Gravel of St. Pasteur, Quebec) were sentenced to five years' imprisonment. Sister Ste. Foy (Elizabeth Lemire of La Baie du Febvre, Quebec), Sister St. Victor (Germaine Tanguay, born in Acton Vale, Quebec) and Sister Ste. Germaine (Imelda Laperriere of Pont Rouge, Quebec) were ordered to be deported from China. The Canadian government has no official confirmation as yet of these reports.
Inquiries of the Ministry
We know that the five nuns have been in a Canton prison since March of this year when they were arrested on what was considered to be the fantastic charge of being responsible for the deaths between October 14, 1949, and January 14, 1951, of over two thousand children who had been receiving care in their orphanage. Their arrests followed upon Canton newspaper stories and the demands of women's organizations that they be severely punished for the maltreatment and murder of children. It may be true that quite a large number of children have died at the orphanage, but the Chinese authorities chose to ignore the fact that the majority of the children brought to the sisters were already ailing and beyond hope of recovery when accepted by them. The sisters consistently accepted all children brought to them for help, whatever their condition was at that time, and no matter what were their chances for survival.
As I have already said, no official report regarding the trial of the five nuns has yet been received in Canada, and it is possible that it may be difficult to secure any accurate and reliable information about the so-called trials. I can assure the house that everything possible will be done to help these unfortunate sisters without bringing more harm on them or other Canadians who are being detained by the Chinese communists at this time. I think that the order of expulsion may be perhaps the most happy denouement, and it would be unfortunate if anything we said or did brought about, as has happened in the past, revocation of the order of expulsion, or the placing of difficulties in the quitting of the country.
The house will be shocked and indignant at the treatment which has apparently been meted out to a group of missionaries who for years have consecrated their lives to the care of orphan children in China; but it will be at the same time sensitive to the extreme delicacy of the situation and the necessity of avoiding any act or word which may add to their present distress. Within the next few days we hope to have more definite information on the whereabouts of the three nuns whose expulsion has been ordered, and on the situation of the two who have been sentenced to terms of imprisonment. We are hopeful that we may, through the British authorities in Hong Kong, be able to get information from and about these nuns, because we presume that they would go through Hong Kong on their way out of the country. I shall naturally keep the house informed of anything that we can regard as accurate in the way of information about them.

Inquiries of the Ministry GRAIN



ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the radio news reports concerning an announcement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) in the west over the week end, can the Prime Minister say whether legislation will be introduced at this session to provide payments on farm stored grain and financial assistance tc farmers with grain out under the snow?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to do that. I have already told the hon. member that we were having the matter investigated, and that just as soon as we had come to a decision I would hasten to apprise the house of it. It will not be expedited by repeating the question. I will not forget his anxiety to have the information, and will bring it down just as soon as we reach a conclusion about it.


Hazen Robert Argue: I think I should tell the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: -that according to the radio news reports the Minister of Trade and Commerce has already announced such a provision.



IRRIGATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. It has to do with a report regarding the Saskatchewan river dam irrigation commission. Has the government advised that commission that the site of the dam on the Saskatchewan river was not finally determined by the government engineers? As a result of so being advised, has the commission ceased its meetings for the time being?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That is all news to me, Mr. Speaker. We made available to the commission all the data that was in the possession of the government with respect to the engineering possibilities of that project. I was under the impression that it had been fully established by competent engineers that it was feasible, and that the only remaining

question was whether or not it would constitute, as to its cost, a prudent investment of national funds.


John George Diefenbaker: I have not made myself clear. Did the government, in the report given to the commission, inform the commission as to the location on the Saskatchewan river where the dam would be constructed provided the government went ahead with it?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well, I will have to take that as a notice. I was under the impression that all the engineering features had been disposed of. There was not, to my knowledge, any communication about those engineering features, other than what was contained in the engineering reports that were made available.


John George Diefenbaker: And that did determine location.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Whether or not that did definitely determine location is something I would have to inquire about. I cannot say at the moment.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Public Works. Has the government received representations from the Winnipeg and St. Boniface harbour commissioners asking that the Alexander Avenue wharf, on the Red river at Winnipeg, be enlarged to meet the increased demand for dockage facilities? Will consideration be given to extending this wharf at an early date?


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would be kind enough to let this stand as a notice. I will seek the information from my officials, and when I receive it I shall give the answer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall be glad to do so. However, may I say that I sent notice to the minister earlier today. Apparently it did not reach him.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: You have had the letter a week.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of

Finance, of which I have given notice. In view of the fact that the press release of the Acting Minister of Finance of November 24 last shows an increase in non-defence expenditures of $37-7 million in the first seven months of the current year-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest the hon. member should put his question more briefly.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes. I wish to ask the parliamentary assistant whether, in view of the increase to the extent of $37-7 million instead of the $35 million decrease, predicted by the minister for the year, the government is proposing to employ the services of an efficiency company, as was done in the case of the national film board, with what we have been told by the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters) were excellent results.


James Sinclair: I am indebted to the hon. member for giving notice of his question. His question is based upon a statement of the Acting Minister of Finance to the effect that our non-defence expenditures in the first seven months of this year are up $37-7 million over what they were in the first seven months of last year. In answer I would like first to put the question in proper perspective by saying that this amounts to one per cent of the budget for this year. When the hon. member realizes the increases in wages and living costs which have occurred in Canada over the last year, he will understand that every industrial firm in the country envies the efficiency of the Department of Finance in holding the increase in the cost of government over seven months down to one per cent.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I be
allowed to point out that when the minister made the statement-


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I be
allowed to point out-


An hon. Member:: Ask your question.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: -that the minister said he had taken into account the various increased expenditures anticipated-


Some hon. Members:: Question, question.


An hon. Member:: Steamroller.
Inquiries of the Ministry FISHERIES



TREATY NEGOTIATIONS WITH JAPAN AND UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Fisheries if he will make a statement at an early date concerning the progress of negotiations with the United States and Japan with respect to a fisheries treaty. Incidentally I am sure we are all delighted to see him back in his seat today.


Hon. R. W. Mayhew (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I left Tokyo after the principles of the agreement had been pretty well agreed to. The writing of the agreement itself was still in progress. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite), who was also there, will be home on Wednesday. Just when my deputy minister will be back I cannot say, but it will probably be toward the end of next week. After his return, and after I have reported to my colleagues, I shall be in a position to make a statement to the house.


Mr. Mclvor:: I am sure we all approve of the Minister of Fisheries. He is not afraid to be shot at, either away from home or at home.



IMPORTATION FROM RUSSIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). In his absence I shall address my question to the Prime Minister. Is it the intention of the government to follow the United States in prohibiting the importation of Russian furs into Canada?
Right Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent (Prime
Minister): The matter has not yet been considered by the government.



NEWFOUNDLAND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. J. Browne (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture, of which I gave notice a few days ago. However, both he and I have been away. Is it true that the federal government is contributing to the cost of building a cold storage plant at Petries, Bay of Islands, in Newfoundland, and what is the amount of the commitment made for that
1516	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Noseworthy purpose? Would the minister state the estimated cost of construction, the amount the Newfoundland government is contributing, and the amount private investors are contributing, and who will be charged with that?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the Cold Storage Act provides that before any grant can be made by the federal government under that act, application must be made by those whose intention it is to construct the plant. It must be consented to before any work is actually done under the plan of construction. Up to date we have had no application from this company for assistance, and therefore I am not in a position to give any of the information asked for.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Resources and Development. Has the minister been advised of the protest of some forty residents of East Kildonan, Manitoba, against the payment of the balance of the mortgage money on their N.H.A.-built homes, before receiving clearance from the buyers of these homes? Will the minister look into this situation, and see what can be done to meet the claims of the purchasers of these homes?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the first part of the question I have not been advised; with respect to the second part, my reply is that I shall look into it.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, November 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. Robert Cauchon for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew.
Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned last Wednesday we were discussing the question of federal aid to education. That discussion arose out of an answer made by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) to a question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) on Tuesday,


November 27, 1951, as recorded at page 1355 of Hansard. I shall return to that question and answer later.
At the outset I wish to say that the question of federal aid is not one in which only a few individuals are concerned. It is one that is of wide concern to all Canadians, generally. It is a question that has been a subject of public discussion, to my personal knowledge, for nearly a quarter of a century. In 1938, as chairman of the educational finance committee of the Canadian teachers federation, I appeared with a committee on behalf of that federation before the Rowell-Sirois commission in this city to place before it arguments in favour of federal aid for education. During that same year teachers' organizations in every province throughout Canada appeared before the commission as it moved across the country. Since that date such national organizations as the trade union congresses, national and provincial organizations of ratepayers and school trustees, national and provincial organizations of home and school clubs, various manufacturers associations and boards of trade, and home owners associations throughout the country have all lent their support to federal aid for education. The matter is one of too much concern to too many people in Canada to be peremptorily laid aside and dismissed without any further consideration by any one person, even if that one person is the very highly respected Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. St. Laurent).
It is generally agreed that it is the right of every Canadian child to secure the best in education, consistent with his need and capacity, that the resources of the state can provide. That is accepted today as the birthright of Canadian children. It is also agreed that such an opportunity cannot be afforded to Canadian children so long as we continue to finance our schools as we do today. There can be no justification in a democracy for providing at public expense better educational opportunities for the future citizens of one section of the country than are provided for those of another part of the country. Since our children are born as Canadian children, as Canadian citizens and not provincial or municipal citizens, the educational opportunity which is afforded to any Canadian child in any municipality in Canada is a matter of importance to the whole of Canada.
It is true that the control of education was delegated by the terms of the British North America Act to the provincial authorities, and in my opinion it was delegated to them for two reasons. First, there was the necessity of safeguarding the racial and religious

interests of the minorities. Without the safeguarding of these racial and religious interests, confederation would have been impossible. The second reason, which I think carried weight at that time, was that in 1867 there was no widespread belief in this country that education was a matter of great national importance or that education was of importance outside the provinces.
The necessity of safeguarding the racial and religious interests of minorities is as great today as it was in 1867. Nevertheless it has been proven conclusively over the years, and beyond any shadow of doubt, that federal support can be given to education without any interference with the rights of the provinces in this matter. Our most recent grants-in-aid to universities are being given with the distinct understanding that the federal government will in no way interfere with the freedom of our universities nor the right of the provinces to exercise their constitutional authority over these same universities. The federal government's magnificent support of education for the men and women of world war II is only another example of federal aid to education given within the terms of our constitution and without interference with provincial rights.
The need for federal aid for education at the elementary and secondary school levels goes much deeper into our national life than appears on the surface. It involves more than the provision of equal educational opportunities for Canadian children, important as that may be. It touches the conditions of home life in our communities. Today there are tens of thousands of Canadians, particularly in the low income groups, who require houses at a cost that they can afford to pay. The federal government recognized this fact in the terms of our national housing legislation. Provision was made therein whereby the federal government might enter into agreements with provinces and municipalities for the building of low rental houses. Even with the federal government's generous offer to bear 75 per cent of the cost and of the deficits of those houses, that has been a failure. So far as I can find out, not one single house has yet been built in Ontario under the terms of that legislation.
Provincial authorities in Ontario tell me that municipalities are reluctant to have low rental houses built within their boundaries1. Why? Because working class people as a rule still raise comparatively large families-surely something to be encouraged rather than discouraged. Large families mean heavy taxes for education, and as long as municipalities and real estate in municipalities are required to carry the larger share of that cost you will
The Address-Mr. Noseworthy have municipalities objecting to the building of low rental houses within their boundaries. Because we get no low rental houses, families today are forced to live in crowded and often unsanitary conditions, to live under conditions that discourage the raising of families and have a very undesirable effect upon those who are being raised. Federal aid for education is actually becoming a matter of more and more vital importance to the welfare of Canada as a nation. It is too important to warrant its rejection by the federal government on a mere technicality.
May I point out further that our neighbours to the south are faced with a similar constitutional problem, but they have in large measure solved that problem. The fact that the individual states in the union have constitutional control over education has not prevented their federal government from making generous grants-in-aid to education at every level. Their experience has shown that these grants can be made without impairing the constitutional rights of the states over education. Surely it is time that we in Canada took an adult view of this matter.
Returning to the question and answer which provoked this debate, the question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), which will be found reported at page 1355 of Hansard of November 27, was as follows:
Has the government received from the Winnipeg school board, and perhaps from others, a request that consideration be given to extending federal aid to education generally?
The answer of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), to be found on the same page, was as follows:
While I have the responsibility as the head of the government I would have to ask my colleagues to join with me in refusing to consider such a request.
When I spoke last Wednesday I did not have the exact wording of that answer before me and at the time I was inclined to agree with the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) when he said that the Prime Minister's reply applied only to a specific question with regard to the Winnipeg school board. The question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre went beyond the specific question raised by the Winnipeg school board. It embraced others and asked whether consideration was being given to extending federal aid to education generally. It was in answer to that question that the Prime Minister stated that as long as he was leader of this government he would have to ask his colleagues to refuse to give consideration to that matter.
1518	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Noseworthy I submit that we should hear from the Prime Minister whether or not the interpretation I have placed upon his answer is the correct one. I say that that is about the only interpretation that can be given. Thousands of Canadians who are interested in this matter will be disappointed to learn that the Prime Minister refuses any longer even to consider the extension of federal aid to education generally, particularly after the sympathetic attitude which he seemed to take toward this subject when it was being debated on October 19, 1949, and I refer hon. members to page 947 of Hansard of that date.
While the Prime Minister did not commit himself or his government to the granting of federal aid he was far from refusing even to consider it. Possibly the Prime Minister has given consideration to this subject since 1949 and it may well be that he has discovered opposition which has led him to change his point of view. If that be the case then I think in a matter of such importance to so many people and to all parts of Canada we should be told what factors caused him to change his mind. That there has been a change of mind is I think borne out by a comparison of his statement last week with some of those which he made back in 1949. For example, we read on page 946 of Hansard of October 19, 1949, a statement by the Prime Minister as follows:
I am sure all hon. members have welcomed this opportunity of focusing their attention upon this assertion, one which certainly appeals to each and every one of us, that there should be across Canada the greatest possible degree of equality of opportunity for the education of our young Canadians, the Canadian of the next generation.
Whether or not the granting of financial assistance by the federal government to the various provinces could be arranged in such a manner as to avoid exercising any direct or indirect control over the field of education, which is essentially within provincial jurisdiction, is a question offering greater possibilities of controversy.
The Prime Minister admitted that this field did offer possibilities of controversy, but there was no indication that he would refuse to consider the question. As a matter of fact, every advance that we have made in dominion-provincial relationship over the years has been made in fields where there was a possibility of controversy. We faced up to those questions and arranged to work out a program that would be acceptable to both the provincial and federal governments.
The Prime Minister went on to say that a royal commission had been appointed to investigate questions regarding the promotion of the development of the aspect of national life in Canada which is not measured in statistical trade returns, or in dollars and cents, or in pounds and shillings. Then he


urged that we wait until the report of the royal commission had been received, and he continued:
-and I should think it would be wise not to attempt to determine with any degree of precision how the purposes can best be served until we have had that report.
I take it that that is spoken in a very different vein and indicates a great deal more sympathy than the answer given last week. I say again that either as a question of privilege or with the consent of the house the Prime Minister, not the hon. member for Ottawa West, should tell us at this time what is the government's position on this question.


Mr. H. A. Hosking (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise today to take part in this debate, because it is a day of home-coming for so many famous and illustrious ministers, who have brought honour to our country by their performance in foreign countries. Sitting here listening to them today has been a treat and an honour which 1 shall remember as long as I live. I happen to be the 139th speaker who has taken part in this debate, and I should like to make some mention of the opinions of the speakers who have preceded me.
While I listened to the hon. member for Yukon-Mackenzie River (Mr. Simmons), the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, I was taken back to the time when I enjoyed the first fruits of education, and that was reading and enjoying a novel. I well recall struggling through the pages of Robinson Crusoe; living his trials, holding my breath at his dangers, and glorying in his successes. As I listened to the hon. member, I found myself following him with rapture as he turned the pages and chapters of the story of the northwest. I was just as enraptured as when I laboured over the history of Robinson Crusoe. The story was a challenge to anyone who prizes opportunity for advancement and progress above comfort and so-called security. May I thank him for the inspiration he has given to all of us.
I want to thank also the mover, the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Cauchon). I noticed the rapt attention with which those who understood the French language listened to him, and I was envious that my education was not broad enough to permit me to enjoy the eloquence of his address. It took me back, however, to the time when I first heard a great man from his province, and I am referring to that distinguished corporation lawyer who is now the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) of the Dominion of Canada.
The time of which I speak was a convocation at Queen's university in the year 1930 when the present Prime Minister was invited

to give the convocation address. I happened to be one of the thousand-odd students who, along with our parents and friends, had the opportunity of listening to this great educationalist. At that time he expounded most of the policies that he has put into effect since he has become leader of the Liberal party. His address was an inspiration to me, and I shall remember it as long as I live. After having heard him make that address, it is easy to understand why he assisted his government in deciding that they should give some 7 millions of dollars to the universities, Little did I think, as I sat listening to him, that I would have the opportunity of being a supporter of his in the government of Canada.
If I may, sir. I should like to put on Hansard some of the facts that he disclosed in his address, and some of the activities in which he expected students of a university might be engaged. During his address he said the country looked to the university graduates for leadership. This is the paragraph which I should like to put on Hansard:
That leadership may take, and it does take, various forms. It may be leadership in the direction of the affairs of the state; leadership in the local affairs of the community; leadership in its economical activities whether industrial or commercial, or leadership in its intellectual and moral outlook on the problems which confront the individual and which he has to solve or with which he has to deal in his own daily life. It may be that leadership which places one in a position of authority where he compels others by regularly organized methods of constraint to do that which he determines and to abstain from that which he forbids. Or it may be that leadership which is effective only because its compelling force is derived from its own intrinsic appeal to the good sense and intelligence of those who recognize it and follow it.
Many times I have thought how that paragraph fits his performance in this house. In the same address he had a few words to say about some of the policies of our socialist friends down to the left. He is referring-


Mr. Brooks:: May I ask from what the hon. member is quoting?


Henry Alfred Hosking: A speech made by the Prime Minister when he was Mr. St. Laurent.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Is it in book form or is the hon. member quoting from some magazine?


Henry Alfred Hosking: No, I am just quoting from some notes of his speech. He said:
Oh, we vote, and we criticize and we grumble frequently enough, but do we realize that the things we criticize and grumble about are just as bad for the other members of the community as they are for ourselves, . . .
I could not help but think how applicable that is to our socialistic friends who are never satisfied with the lot we have in this country, even although it is recognized as being the
The Address-Mr. Hosking second best country in the world. I have often wondered just how much damage their propaganda does to the morale of the people of this country. It may be that in the years which lie ahead esprit de corps will be necessary in this country, and I wonder how much damage our friends to the left have done to our morale and to the esprit de corps of our people.
In this address the Prime Minister mentioned the challenge to the engineers:
And now just a few words about the professional engineers. I will only venture a few sketchy observations. We have heard a lot about unemployment in the last few months. And I am told that the hydro electric power the engineers have put to work in the province of Quebec alone is equal to the working capacity of 25 million men. It amounts to 21 million horsepower, and within five years another 21 million will have been harnessed, and will be seeking employment.
That was at a time when everyone was complaining about unemployment, and how mechanization was creating unemployment. Here was a man speaking to university men who would be looking for jobs, and he was telling them that it was necessary for us to develop this country. He was advocating the development of these resources at a time when most people believed we should stop developing things which would have the tendency of eliminating manual labour. What would have happened had we not had men of his vision at that time to encourage the development of the natural resources in this country? What would have happened when Hitler attacked us had we not had men of his principles formulating the policy and telling us to go ahead and do what was right regardless of the cost?
My reason for introducing this speech by the Prime Minister, and its association with education, is due to an incident that took place in this house on November 27 when the hon. member for 'Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asked this question, as recorded at page 1355 of Hansard:
May I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister? Has the government received from the Winnipeg school board, and perhaps from others, a request that consideration be given to extending federal aid to education generally? Is consideration being given to this question?
The Prime Minister's reply was as follows:
I do not know that any such representations have been received. While I have the responsibility as the head of the government I would have to ask my colleagues to join with me in refusing to consider such a request.
The reason for that reply is quite clear. Our Prime Minister, in his brief statement, enunciated a general policy of the Liberal party. It has always been the policy of the Liberal party, as long as I can remember, to take the stand that the dominion government must obey the provisions of the British
1520	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Hosking North America Act. They have not the right to interfere in any of the laws which are the responsibility of the provinces and the municipalities. We are responsible for the money we collect in taxes. If we give grants to the primary and secondary schools, then we must be responsible to see how that money is spent. No one, by any stretch of the imagination, could consider that the dominion government should get down to the directing of primary and secondary schools. That is something that must necessarily follow if they make grants to them. We must be responsible for how the money we collect in taxes is spent. I was extremely proud to hear the Prime Minister, in two short sentences, express to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre the policy of the Liberal government not to interfere in the everyday life of the citizens; education is the responsibility of the citizens at municipal level. It was gratifying to hear the Prime Minister enunciate this policy. I hope he will long continue to carry out those policies.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did anyone ask him to interfere?


Henry Alfred Hosking: The suggestion that he is not interested in education could be amply disproved by the fact that this government has seen fit to allot some $7 million to universities so that they could produce more graduates.
I again suggest that the reason for this policy is that the government is possibly the greatest employer of university graduates. Such graduates are required by all departments. They are very important for the national research department. The dominion government therefore has a national responsibility to see that men with these qualifications are produced to carry out the necessary functions in order to give us good government. To ask the dominion government to take part in the everyday education of the lives of our citizens is something that I do not think should be done. I hope that I do not live in a state where that takes place.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Henry Alfred Hosking: Yes; I am quite willing to do that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member explain why the making of grants to universities is not considered as interference but that the making of grants to education generally would be regarded by him as interference?


Henry Alfred Hosking: The question is a good one.
Mr. Nose worthy: What is the answer?


Henry Alfred Hosking: The dominion government is interested in all things that deal with the dominion as a whole. When the dominion government is assisting university graduates
fMr. Hosking.]

it is dealing with a finished product which the dominion as a whole will use to a greater and greater degree in every department. It is quite a different situation when we come down to the primary schools.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Most people have to get a general education before they can go to university.


Henry Alfred Hosking: I should like to commend the Prime Minister on the way in which he has dealt with this matter. I am envious of him also, because he could enunciate the policy of the Liberal party regarding education clearly and decisively in two sentences whereas I have had trouble in trying to enunciate the same policy to the satisfaction of my hon. friend in the space of several minutes.
There are one or two things further that this debate prompts me to say. One is with regard to our credit restrictions. I happen to be in a business that is hurt by credit restrictions possibly as much as is any other business in the dominion. When I was going to university I was in that business not as an owner but as a labourer. I should like to make a few comparisons between the period of 1929, 1930 and 1931 and the present day. I can remember quite well selling, in 1929, an automobile to a customer, going to school for the winter, then coming home the next summer and finding that car sitting in the place of my employment to be resold again because it had been seized. I can remember selling it again that summer, the next summer when I came home, finding the same automobile sitting there in that same lot to be sold a third time because it had been seized from its second owner.
Today I am in the automobile business as a dealer and I speak with some knowledge of the situation. I can say that most automobile dealers are extremely fortunate people in that these credit restrictions have been applied. I am referring principally to the credit restrictions as applied by the banks.
I know of many dealers who have their credit set at the bank at a figure which was required by them six months ago when they had few used cars in stock and thus required a small amount of capital. Today many of them could use more capital in order to put more used cars on their lots, but the banks will not allow them to increase their borrowings. Thus, they are not allowed to put more dollars into used cars on their lots. If the credit restrictions of the banks were removed, I am convinced that we would see many millions of dollars in used cars standing around in the used car lots of the Dominion of Canada. You may well say to me: What effect has that on the financial stability of the Dominion of

Canada? I would suggest that there would come a time when the banks, through fear as to the financial responsibility of the individual dealers, would come to them and say: You must somewhere find some money with which to pay off your loans. The minute that situation arose no new cars would be ordered from the producers by the dealers across the dominion and we would have a situation of serious unemployment in the manufacturing plants of the automobile industry, while millions of dollars' worth of used cars were being sold from the various dealers' lots. There is a marked parallel between conditions now and in 1930. Our government has prevented from taking place this year what took place in 1930. I should like to suggest that this situation applies also with respect to those who are selling electrical appliances, electric refrigerators, washing machines and so on. That applies to any industries where they are trading in used articles which they will have to sell to customers at a later date. I should like the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) to bear this in mind. If it should happen-and I hope it will-that some relief can be given in his taxation program in the next year, I hope he will remember that automobiles, refrigerators, stoves and washing machines are considered by many people to be essential. I hope he will remove some part of the new high tax which now exists on these commodities. I am very pleased that it would appear that this action might be possible. Thus I hope that when the minister considers his new budget he will bear this in mind, and I am sure that it will meet with favour amongst most of the people across the dominion.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Will the hon. member permit a question? Will the hon. member tell us why, in his opinion, federal grants in aid of technical and vocational schools is not an interference with provincial rights, while grants in aid of secondary schools would be?


Henry Alfred Hosking: The policy of the government has always been to allow the municipalities to run their own governments as they saw fit, and not to encroach on the rights of the provincial governments as laid down by the British North America Act. This would be a complete contravention of that.


Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate for one specific purpose. Since I have raised the same matter several times before I shall
The Address-Mr. Thatcher detain the house for only five minutes. I wish to protest, and protest vigorously the continued failure of the government to allocate to certain maritime and prairie provinces their fair share of the huge defence contracts. It seems to me that the greatest single weakness of Canada's defence effort so far has been the lack of any real attempt to decentralize this nation's industrial potential. Last February I asked the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) for a breakdown, by provinces, of the defence contracts which had been let in the first nine months of that fiscal year. When the figures were tabled I thought they were quite significant, because Ontario and Quebec in that period received 82 per cent of all the contracts that had been let. Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and the three prairie provinces together received only 4-5 per cent. My own province of Saskatchewan obtained only one-tenth of 1 per cent of the total contracts-only a little more than the Yukon.
Since that time many opposition members and some government supporters have pointed out the dangers of this policy, the weaknesses in it, and the unfairness. We were repeatedly promised by various government spokesmen that something would be done to rectify the situation; that something would be done to spread out these contracts in a little fairer way. I recall the Prime Minister speaking on February 26. He told parliament that it would be healthier for the country as a whole if industries were spread out in a more diversified fashion. The Minister of Defence Production time and again has told the house that his department was trying to diversify defence contracts. As a matter of fact, last February the premier of Manitoba wrote to the Minister of Defence Production and asked him for a larger share of defence contracts for Manitoba. According to the Toronto Saturday Night the Minister of Defence Production replied to Mr. Campbell, and I quote from page 23 of the issue of November 24:
I can assure you at the outset that there is no lack of desire here to place contracts with Manitoba firms. The Canadian Commercial Corporation have instructions to give a preference to firms in Manitoba and on the prairies in considering tenders on military equipment, and I am sure that they are doing so.
Well, Mr. Speaker, as a western member I should like to know where that preference is. Despite all the promises which have been forthcoming, month after month as these lists

The Address-Mr. Thatcher are tabled, we still find that at least six provinces in this dominion are not being given anywhere near their share of defence contracts. I think the time has come to do something about this matter. I have been personally surprised at the reticence shown by the department in giving to the house actual provincial break-downs. Many hon. members have requested such information. I recall doing so myself on two or three occasions. I recall the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Dinsdale), the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) and others asking the minister to break down these defence contracts by provinces. But always he has refused to do so. The parliamentary assistant has maintained that they were not available. Here is what he said at page 1010 of Hansard:
The information as to defence contracts awarded is available and published for each two-weeks period, but the break-down by provinces as asked for is not available.
The arguments that he has used for refusing the information have been twofold. First, he maintained that the lists do not contain subcontracts. Second, he argued that contractors' postal addresses are not necessarily in the province where the work is being done. For myself I cannot accept the validity of the parliamentary assistant's arguments in this connection. But even if we do accept them as valid, I think it is inconceivable that it would affect the over-all picture any more than in a very minor way. I say that this information has been refused opposition members simply to keep the facts from the country as a whole.
After trying every other way to get the information that I wanted I decided last week to analyse the lists myself. I want to say that I do not think a member of parliament should have to waste hours on detailed work of this kind. We have not got adding machines in our offices, and other office equipment which is necessary. There are hundreds of civil servants in Ottawa who are paid to do such a job. I think the parliamentary assistant has been lax in refusing us the desired information. Since April 1- I think that is the time the department was set up-13 lists have been put out giving all the defence contracts which have been let. They are numbered C-l to C-13, and the heading of each of them is: "Defence contractors awarded defence orders aggregating in excess of $10,000." I would like to give the house a break-down of those figures as I have analysed them. I said that the period covered is seven months, April 1 to

October 31. I have compiled them		in round
figures, omitting the as follows:	thousands.	They are
Defence contracts allocated April 1 to Dollar value		October 31 Percentage
Province	in thousands	of totalNewfoundland 	.. 162	[DOT]03Prince Edward Island ..	.. 1,520	[DOT]32Nova Scotia 	.. 29,940	6-48New Brunswick 	. . 8,218	1-78Quebec 	.. 163,131	35-34Ontario 	.. 186,431	40-38Manitoba	.. 16,981	3-67Saskatchewan 	. . 4,460	[DOT]96Alberta 	.. 11,884	2-67British Columbia 	
Yukon and Northwest	.. 37,164	8-05Territories 	. . 1,692 461,583	[DOT]36
That means, Mr. Speaker, that the two central provinces received 75-72 per cent of all the defence contracts during the past seven months. It also means that the three prairie provinces put together received only 7 * 30 per cent, with Saskatchewan getting only -96 per cent. I may add that most of Saskatchewan's contracts were airports. These days Alberta could almost be classified as an industrialized province. Yet it received only 2-67 per cent. Surely these figures make two things perfectly clear. First of all, at least six provinces of our confederation are being treated unfairly, as far as defence contracts are concerned.


Mr. Smith (Moose Mountain):: Where did the airports go in Saskatchewan?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: What has that got to do with it? One of them went to the best constituency in that province-Moose Jaw.


John James Smith: What is the name of it?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: And I am pleased about the locality. The fact remains however-and I think my hon. friend would agree-that our province has not received our share of industrial contracts.


John James Smith: I am not
quarrelling, but I was just wondering where they went.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: You know where they went.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: One to Moose Jaw and the
other to Saskatoon. Perhaps if a few Liberal members would cry louder for defence contracts we might obtain a larger share.
In the second place these figures indicate that no conscious effort is being made by the Department of Defence Production at this time to decentralize industry. I would repeat

that in my opinion this fact is one of the greatest weaknesses in our present defence program.
The citizens of my province are going to be doubly perturbed by these figures, coming as they do on top of the recent census figures. We realized last month when we saw those figures that while most provinces have enjoyed sharp increases in population between 1941 and 1951, Saskatchewan lost 67,000 people. In the past few years the trend in rural areas has been toward larger and larger mechanized farms. In the war years we lost thousands of our younger people to the industries of central Canada. That trend is still continuing, and particularly since Korea. Unless something is done to help the outlying provinces industrialize, they may lose even more of their population in future.
I believe most hon. members would agree that, purely from the point of view of defence, it is not wise to have all our industries centralized in these two central provinces. If an atomic war should come, then, as has been pointed out, three or four well-placed atomic bombs could probably neutralize much of the nation's industrial potential. It seems to me that it is the duty of the federal government to help any part of the nation that is in danger of sliding backwards. My province and certain others need help today, so that they may have industries to keep their population.
In the allocation of defence contracts, the government could use its influence to promote the decentralization I have advocated. Therefore I urge the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) to give the outlying provinces, and without further delay, their fair share of defence contracts. The people of Saskatchewan want no more than is properly coming to them-but they certainly want no less. I have no doubt the same is true of the other provinces.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, while I am deeply interested in federal aid to education, and have favoured it for a number of years, and while I am deeply interested in the decentralization of industry so that the other provinces may have a share of industrial development during the war, I hope I shall be excused for refraining from discussing either of these most interesting topics on this occasion.
For a short time I desire to turn my attention to the dairy industry of Canada. Canada needs the dairy cow. There can be no sound
The Address-Mr. Blackmore and enduring national economy without a dairying industry equally enduring and sound.
Particularly in the Canadian economy, the dairy industry must be sound. The percentage of the total cash farm income derived from dairy products in 1950 was as follows:
Per cent
Canada	 14-7
Quebec	 29-2
Nova Scotia	 23-8
British Columbia	 18-9
Ontario	 17-6
New Brunswick	 16
Prince Edward	Island	 14-6
Manitoba	 8-6
Alberta	 7-3
Saskatchewan		 4*7
These figures are provided by the national dairy council. From the dairy cow comes about 40 per cent of the beef and 60 per cent of the veal used by Canadians. The market for Canadian coarse grains in eastern Canada is provided by eastern farmers who buy extra feed for their stock-generally dairy stock. In western Canada 2 [DOT] 6 million tons of coarse grains each year, on an average, move into eastern Canada as feed, to be used mostly for dairy cattle. The figures show that 16-64 per cent of the entire live cattle shipments to the United States in 1950 consisted of dairy and purebred cattle, to the number of 67,900 head.
United States demands for Canadian dairy cattle and calves have been increasing in the last few years. Millions of dollars have come from that source to eastern Canadian farmers.
The figures show that 450,000 Canadian farmers alone depend upon receipts from dairy products, as a necessary source of income. We find this at page 3 in a fine little document published by the national dairy council, entitled "The Top Six Inches of Soil".
The dairy cow contributes $600 million annually to Canadian commerce. And, according to the same authority, the dairy cow at all times stabilizes the Canadian economy, and often she is the saving of many of the farmers. We had an excellent example of that during the depression. Production, manufacturing, processing and distribution of dairy products in some 2,000 dairy plants provide the direct or indirect livelihood of 17 per cent of Canada's total population. This is indicated in another fine little booklet of the national dairy council entitled "What is Best for Canada".
Soil fertility maintenance will always be a "must" for every wise people and government. In Canada this truth applies with

The Address-Mr. Blackmore
cogent force. Many, many farms have been abandoned in Canada-far, far too many, and especially in Ontario and the maritime provinces. Great numbers of farms in Canada have simply become worn out. When we contrast that situation with the way in which the fertility and yielding capacity of soil in most parts of Great Britain have been preserved down through the centuries, we must find cause for complete shame in Canada.
Far, far too many of our farmers in Canada merely mine the soil. This is particularly true through the western provinces. The mechanization of our farms is rapidly displacing the horse, with his requirements of fibre-restoring pasture and his natural return of nutrients to the soil. This is a matter which has been given too little attention in calculating policy for Canada.
Over a great percentage of this country erosion by wind and water is taking place at an alarming rate. Surely we do not have to wait until this nation becomes a pile of rocks before the people in responsible positions take common-sense action, and do something about it.
As reported in the Alberta wheat pool budget of November 23, 1951, the research laboratory of the experimental farm at Swift Current points out that the weight of an inch of water falling upon an acre of soil is close to 110 tons. The drops falling upon the bare soil splash about 22 J tons of clay or clay loam. The run-off can carry away a substantial weight of this soil to where it becomes non-available. From the 1936-1948 progress report of the division of field husbandry, soils and agricultural engineering of the central experimental farm, Ottawa, we learn the following as to the effect of manure on water erosion of soil:
Results on soil and water runoff on summerfallow and corn plots on a 10 per cent slope are available from two series, one of which received 16 tons of manure per acre at the time the plots were established in 1944 and again in the fall of 1947, and the other has received no manure.
The average loss per acre for a cropping season during the period 1945 to 1948 inclusive on the manured summerfallow plot was 31-9 tons of soil and 228-2 tons of water, as compared with 381 tons of soil and 298-5 tons of water on a plot similar except that no manure was applied. Where com was grown, the runoff was 31-1 tons of soil and 289-3 tons of water on the manured plot as compared with 39-3 tons of soil and 319-8 tons of water where no manure was applied.
Manure improves the physical condition- of the soil favouring greater absorption of water, and consequently less erosion occurs.
The dairy cow is the greatest rehabilitating agent available to man. Let us never forget that. There are three main means of rehabilitating soils: first, through artificial fertilizers;
IMr. Blackmore.]
second, through green manure by the plowing under of legumes, sweet clover, red clover and the like; and third, through livestock manure. Barnyard manure from cattle is in every way the best means of rehabilitating soil. I should like to refer to a national dairy council of Canada report based on experiments and observations at our experimental farm. The article reads:
Farmyard manure constitutes the most valuable by-product of the farm. During the last war the Department of Agriculture estimated that 114,147,000 tons of manure exclusive of bedding materials are produced each year by the livestock in Canada. On the basis of average chemical analyses of the excrement from various species of animals, the nutrients in the total manure produced would be equivalent to 3,353,550 tons of sulphate of ammonia, 1,024,145 tons of superphosphate (20 per cent P205) and 1,137,825 tons of muriate of potash.
In addition to these potential nutrients manure adds large quantities of valuable organic matter to the soil, thereby improving the tilth of both light and heavy soils.
The approximate amount of nutrients in a mixture of fresh manure from the common species of farm animals is 10 pounds of nitrogen per ton of manure, 5 pounds of phosphoric acid and 10 pounds of potash. One mature milk cow would produce about 1 ton of manure a month. At this rate milk cows in Canada last year produced over 43 million tons of manure of a fertilizer potential in terms of soil nutrients of 216,540 tons of nitrogen, 108,270 tons of phosphoric acid and 216,540 tons of potash.
What is the best combination of means of rehabilitating soils? Experiments have been *conducted for a good many years in Canada in an effort to determine whether or not artificial fertilizers can replace manure, whether artificial fertilizers together with green manure can sufficiently rebuild soils, or whether it becomes necessary to have barnyard manure, and just what is the result of combining the three one way and another. An experiment has been conducted in Lethbridge in which hon. members will be interested. It has to do with sugar beets, wheat and alfalfa. I should like to quote a page from "Silver Sunshine", a document published by Canadian Sugar Factories Limited. It is the fall edition, 1951. I read from page 5, as follows:
Each plot consists of four fertility treatments: 1. Barnyard manure and mineral fertilizer; 2. barnyard manure only; 3. mineral fertilizer only; 4. no additions.
The barnyard manure is applied and ploughed in the fall of the year prior to the first year beets at the rate of 30 tons per acre. This manure taken from the livestock barns and feeding corrals is piled for a year to kill weed seeds, before it is spread on the plots. Until the last few years, triple superphosphate was drilled in with the beet seed at 100 pounds per acre on the plots receiving mineral fertilizer. Due to the shortage of this fertilizer, 11-48-0 is now used at the same rate.
The ten-year average yields (1941-1950) are tabulated below.
If I may have permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to have the table put on the record. Is there any objection?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Is
there any objection?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Horne Blackmore: The table is as follows:
Ten-year average yields* (1941-1950) of crops grown in an eight-year irrigated rotation at the Dominion Experimental Station, Lethbridge, Alta.
Treatment**
B. Man.	Min. Fer-
and Min. B. Man.	tilizer	NoFertilizer	only	only	additionsSugar beets ..	21-54	21-14	12-80	3-10Sugar beets ..	20-15	19-27	14-03	4-00Wheat 	54-00	53-00	49-20	46-00Wheat 	48-30	47-50	43-10	36-90Alfalfa hay ..	3-63	2-81	2-40	1-32Alfalfa hay ..	3-71	2-60	1-85	0-96Alfalfa hay ..	3-23	2-34	1-40	0-94Wheat 	41-30	33 00	31-80	27-40
* Sugar beet and alfalfa yields in tons per acre; wheat yields in bushels per acre.
[DOT][DOT]Barnyard manure was applied at 30 tons per acre once in the rotation cycle. One hundred pounds of 11-48-0 was applied with the beet seed twice during the rotation. No fertilizers were applied directly to any crops but beets.
At page 23 of a 1936-48 progress report of the dominion experimental farm there is an article entitled "Soil Fertility Investigations" by A. J. MacLean, which is very valuable in this connection. To save the time of the house, I also ask permission to put this on the record. It contains a valuable tabulation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Is it
agreed?
The Address-Mr. Blackmore


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Horne Blackmore: The article reads as follows:
The maintenance and increase in crop yields through the use of farmyard manure, green manure and chemical fertilizers has been the object of a number of experiments conducted over a long period of years.
Comparison of Farmyard Manure and Chemical Fertilizers
In order to learn the extent to which chemical fertilizers may be used to replace or supplement farmyard manure, an experiment begun in 1910 at Ottawa is still in progress. In this experiment, located on a sandy loam soil, a rotation of mangels, oats, clover, and timothy is followed, and the treatments consist of farmyard manure, chemical fertilizer, manure supplemented with chemical fertilizer, and a check plot where no manure or chemical fertilizer is applied. The manure treatment provides for 15 tons of farmyard manure per acre for the mangel crop. The chemical fertilizer treatment consists of 100 pounds of nitrate of soda, 300 pounds of superphosphate (16 per cent), and 75 pounds of muriate of potash, per acre for mangels, and 100 pounds of nitrate of soda per acre applied for each of the other crops in the rotation. Where farmyard manure is supplemented with chemical fertilizer, 7-5 tons of manure, 50 pounds of nitrate of soda, 150 pounds of superphosphate (16 per cent), and 37-5 pounds of muriate of potash are applied per acre for mangels, and 100 pounds per acre of nitrate of soda are applied for each of the other crops in the rotation. In terms of nutrients supplied, the rate employed for the manure treatment was higher than that for chemical fertilizer. A rate of 15 tons per acre of farmyard manure as used would supply approximately 120 pounds of nitrogen, 90 pounds of phosphoric acid, and 120 pounds of potash. The chemical fertilizer treatment is applied in the experiment at such a rate as to supply 64 pounds of nitrogen, 48 pounds of phosphoric acid, and 37-5 pounds of potash.
Table 6.-Comparison of Farmyard Manure and Chemical Fertilizer over a 36-Year Period.
Period of years	Crop	Average yield per acre	Check (no treatment)	Farmyard manure	Chemical fertilizer	Manure anc fertilizer1913-1924	Mangels...	.tons	11-44	21-67	19-83	21-611925-1936	tons	4-62	23-66	21-72	23-961937-1948	tons	3-44	21-58	19-25	21-50Av. 1913-1948	tons	6-50	22-30	20-27	22-361913-1924	. .bu.	44-5	51*2	52-41925-1936	bu.	450	63-4	60-6	61-51937-1948	bu.	31-5	61-2	65-5	65-1Av. 1913-1948	bu.	40-3	60-2	59-1	59-71913-1924	2*27	3-90	3-66	3-791925-1936	tons	1-93	3-77	3-25	3-571937-1948	tons	1-54	3-59	2-85	3-15Av. 1913-1948	tons	1-91	3-75	3-25	3-501913-1924	Timothy*.	3-03	2-64	2-981925-1936	tons	1-98	3-20	2-71	2-881937-1948	tons	1-54	3-07	2-52	2-59Av. 1913-1948	tons	1-76	3-10	2-62	2-82
The timothy crop on the check plot was pastured during the period 1913-1921.

The Address-Mr. Blackmore growth from 1946 to 1951, then in order to provide Canadians in the year 1955 with the amount of milk they consumed per capita in 1950 we shall have to produce an additional 1-7 billion pounds of milk, which will require an additional 300,000 cows. I do not know that the situation needs to be more serious than that.
Unless we take steps at once, and the right kind of steps, to aid our dairymen, Canadians will rue this day through which we are passing for a long time to come. Possibly they shall rue it when the means of remedying the situation will have been largely removed from their control.
What are the causes of this dangerous decline? The first cause is the low cost of margarine. The second reason for this decline is the high cost of butter. As everyone knows, butter has risen rapidly in price. On October 17, 1951, basis Toronto delivered, the price was 69 cents per pound, according to figures provided me by the national dairy council. The third reason is the low cost of vegetable oils, to which I have already referred. Prices in the United States market for crude vegetable oils on October 16 were as follows: cottonseed oil, 14-5 cents; soybean oil, 13| cents; peanut oil, 16| cents; coconut oil, 14 cents. In February, just a few months earlier, the prices for these same products were as follows: 24J cents; 21J cents; 27 cents and 24J cents. This shows how rapidly the price of these vegetable oils is going down, while the price of butter must unquestionably go up or we shall not produce butter.
The fourth reason is a lack of tariff protection against incoming vegetable oils. Oils, including copra, enter into Canada from British preference countries and certain other of the principal edible oil exporting countries in the world entirely free of tariff duty. Most oils from the United States used in substitutes pay only 10 per cent tariff duty, or approximately 1J cents per pound at today's prices. This information was provided by the national dairy council.
The fifth reason is the rapid increase of percentage use of vegetable oils in margarine, 1950 to 1951. They have come to use more and more of this vegetable oil in the manufacture of a given weight of margarine. As the percentage of oils used increases, so the margarine becomes cheaper to produce. The percentage of coconut and other vegetable oils,

mostly peanut, used in the manufacture of margarine increased from 10-8 per cent in the January-August period of 1950 to 23-9 per cent of the total in the same period of 1951. This represents an increase of 146-3 per cent in the utilization of coconut and other oils in the first eight months of this year compared with last. Again these figures are supplied by the national dairy council. What is the result? A tremendous growth in the over-all importation of vegetable oils. I have a set of figures which I shall put on Hansard, if it is the will of the house, which reveal the low cost of margarine to retail stores. This set of figures which was prepared by the dairy council is very enlightening.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Is there any objection to these figures being put on Hansard'!


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Horne Blackmore: The table is as follows:
Costs of Oleomargarine
Cents per pound Cottonseed Soybean
Oil	Oil
(As of	5/5/49)
Crude oil	
11-75	10-87Freight from mill to refinery	-28	-28Unloading and refining	-25	-2512-28	11-40Credit for fonts	
-65	-6511-63	10-7591 per cent field	
1-05	-97Prices f.o.b. refinery	
12-68	11-72
Present oleomargarine formulae call for 70 per cent cottonseed oil and 30 per cent soybean oil, so:
Cost of cottonseed oil in formulae is .... 8-88
Cost of soybean oil in formulae is	 3-52
Cost of oils in oleomargarine formulae

Bleaching	 -10
Hydrogenation	 -14
Deodorizing	 -24
Addition of lecithin	 -10
Loading and icing cars	 -02
Administrative	 -15
Shrinkage (14 per cent)	 -37
Finished margarine oil-f.o.b. refinery

 13-52
Freight from refinery to oleomargarine plant	 -35
Cost delivered to oleomargarine plant...13-87
Over-run (produced by the weight of water, salt and milk solids in oleomargarine yield 122-5 per cent	 2-30

The Address-Mr. Blackmore
Cost of oleomargarine (before following costs)	 11-57
Manufacturing labour	 -65
Manufacturing overhead	 -41
Federal excise tax stamps	 -25
15,000 units, vitamin A	 -80
Salt, emulsifier, skim milk	 -50
Wrapper, carton and shipping container 1-33
Shipping labour	 05
Shipping overhead	 -07
Oleomargarine plant overhead	 -21
Cost of packaged oleomargarine-f.o.b.
factory	 15.84
Selling expense	 -57
Administrative	 -15
Freight	 1-00
Cost delivered wholesale warehouse	 17-56
Delivery cost to retail store	 1-50
Cost delivered to retail store	 19-06
Gross profit (before advertising and taxes) 5-94
Average prices retailers paid for oleomargarine (est.)	 25-00
The result of this has been again a tremendous growth in the over-all importation of vegetable oils. I have another table prepared by the council which illustrates this. With the permission of the house I should like to put it on Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Horne Blackmore: 
Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

The Address-Mr. Blackmore Mr. Blackmore: The table is as follows:



CANADIAN TARIFF ON DAIRY PRODUCTS

[Stage Direction]
Tariff	Commodity	Unit	Rate of Duty	Item	British Preferential	Most Favoured Nation Tariff	General Tariff18	lb.	8i , 5^ Australia and New Zealand	12(f	Ut
17		<«	u ljf Australia and New Zealand	3)!	n
					
232d		«	17$ per cent plus 2p 12$ per cent Australia and New Zealand	25?per cent plus 2$^	27$ per cent plus 3^
					
711		((	15 per cent 2H If? Australia and New Zealand	20 per cent H	25 per cent. hi
43a		it			
					
43a	it	3 U 3^ on condensed	43	Milk, condensed and evaporated	2H	m141	a	15 per cent 20 per cent 25 per cent	25 per cent 20 per cent 35 per cent	35 per cent plus \i 27$ per cent 35 per cent45	«	44	u	
We protect our dairy products against other dairy products, but leave them defenceless against oil.
The council cites the United States duties applicable to dairy products from Canada. They are shown in another document which I think should be placed on Hansard because it will be of interest to the people of the country and the hon. members of the house. It was submitted to me on the authority of the dairy council.
Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Horne Blackmore: The table is as follows:
United States Duties Applicable Dairy Products From Canada
Whole milk-2 cents per gal. quota 3,000,000 American gals. In excess of this amount 61 cents per gal. (Subject to possible reduction to 1-62 cents per gallon. Quotas subject to upward revision. Ex-quotas subject to reduction of 1 present rates.)
Cream-15 cents per gal. quota 1,500,000 American gals. In excess of this amount 56%) cents per gal. (Subject to possible reduction to 14-5 cents per gallon. Quotas subject to upward revision. Ex-quotas subject to reduction 1 present rates.)
Butter-7 cents per pound. Quota of 50 million pounds for all countries for period Nov. 1 to March 31 and quotas of 5,000,000 pounds in each of the periods April 1 to July 15th, and July 16 to

October 31st. Canada can participate in this quota. After quota is filled duty is 14 cents per pound.
Cheddar cheese-3 cents per pound, minimum ad valorem 15 per cent (Subject to reduction to 2 cents per pound or 121 per cent minimum ad valorem.)
Whole milk powder-3 Ho cents per pound.
Skim milk powder-1) cents per pound.
Lactose-25 per cent ad valorem.
Cream powder-6J cents per pound.
Evaporated milk-1 cent per pound.
Condensed milk-13 cents per pound.
The remarkable thing in dealing with the United States is that here is a country with 150 million people, with better resources than any other nation on the face of the earth, with the highest industrial development probably to be found anywhere; and according to this information that nation strictly protects its dairy industry by the various means of control indicated in -the document which I have put on Hansard. Yet we foolhardy people in Canada suppose that our dairy industry can get along without that protection.
The question is, what to do? A tariff would naturally tend to force up prices of dairy products substitutes greatly to the distress of consumers. I am opposed to any increased costs to consumers. At this time they are paying all they can possibly stand. Most

consumers throughout this country are at their wit's end to know how to make ends meet.
We could use an excise tax upon the manufacture of margarine and all substitutes for dairy products. Again this would increase consumer costs. We could use a subsidy on milk and all milk products.
I have a document here prepared by the national dairy council which shows what it would cost to apply a subsidy. If it is the desire of hon. members, I should like to put it on Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Horne Blackmore: This memorandum reads as follows:
Butter
To pay a 10 cents per pound subsidy on creamery butter (8 cents per pound on butterfat) on the basis of 1951 production estimates would require 27-7 million dollars.
Fluid milk
During the war years a 2 cents per quart consumer subsidy and a 1-5 cents producer subsidy was paid on milk for fluid consumption.
To pay a 3 cents per quart subsidy based upon fluid milk sales estimated for 1951 would require 41 million dollars per year.
Per capita consumption of fluid milk reached a peak of -88 pints per day in 1945. In order to regain this per capita consumption on the basis of 1951 population an increase of 715 million pounds of milk would be utilized.
We could use guarantees of prices of materials entering into production of dairy products, also guarantees of prices and markets for our finished dairy products. We could use quotas to avoid vegetable oils displacing Canadian dairy production. We could use any effective combination of these five devices, but I demand that there be no increase in the cost of dairy products to Canadian consumers, or any increase in the cost to consumers of substitutes for dairy products. Personally as an adequate means of reviving our dairy industry I prefer an extensive and consistent use of subsidies together with rigid import quotas on vegetable oils entering Canada.
I have just this to add in closing, Mr. Speaker. The Canadian dairy industry simply must be saved and in the saving process there must be no increase in price to consumers of dairy products or substitutes therefor. If we are to avoid serious danger -and I mean every syllable of that phrase- we must begin the saving process right now.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I wish to detain the house for a few minutes on a matter which I think is of interest and importance. But before doing so I wish to take just a minute to put on the record what I found some difficulty in putting on it earlier in the afternoon because at
The Address-Mr. J. M. Macdonnell that time hon. members did not seem to be greatly interested. I was interested in the light-hearted brushing aside by the parliamentary assistant of the words which were, I think, uttered seriously by the finance minister and which were taken seriously by this house last April. I propose to read just a sentence or two from what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) then said, which will indicate what I was not able to indicate owing to the enthusiasm shown an hour and a half ago by those who so valiantly support everything a government member says. This will indicate that the Minister of Finance apparently spoke seriously, and that he gave the house to understand that the various increased costs had been taken care of in his estimates. As reported at page 1801 of Hansard the Minister of Finance said:
The estimates placed before parliament for this year show a reduction of $35 million below last year, despite an increase of more than 10 per cent in salary and wage levels, despite higher materials and construction costs, and despite an increase of nearly $40 million in old age pensions, family allowances, tax rental agreements with provinces, and similar payments that rise automatically with increases in population and the value of production. The numbers of employees engaged in normal government administration are being reduced . . .
And so on. I shall not pursue the matter further, Mr. Speaker, but I just want to reiterate that we had this afternoon, in the answer given to me, what I regard as a rather clever escape or attempt to escape by an utterly irresponsible answer, having regard to what the minister said last April.
I wish to take a few minutes of the time of the house in order to bring to the attention of hon. members some remarks made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) which seemed to me to have been in the highest degree uncalled for, to put it mildly. These remarks were made before the United Nations first of all last January; then further remarks were made a few weeks ago in Paris. At a time when it seems highly desirable to safeguard and nourish common understanding, the minister seems to have gone out of his way to heap criticism on commonwealth statesmen for decisions made by them. Moreover, the line which he took was entirely inconsistent with the line taken at the time by the government of which he is now a member and which at that time he was serving in another capacity.
I shall have to touch on matters which carry the mind back more than a decade; but the excursion into the past, which will be brief, is the minister's responsibility and not mine. I am sorry he is not here today. I have tried to give notice to his parliamentary assistant. I think today is my only
1532

The Address-Mr. J. M. Macdonnell chance to bring this matter before the house. It is a matter which has attracted attention outside of the house, and I consider it to be right and proper that it should be put on the record of the house also.
In a speech last January before the first -political-committee of the United Nations, the minister referred to a certain statement of principles prepared by the so-called "cease-fire" group of which he was a member, and referred to criticisms made 'of this group on the ground that they were, in the minister's words, "in danger of repeating the betrayal of Munich". The minister then went on to use these words:
The tragedy of Munich . . . was not in going there. It might have been better if more governments had been able to accept the responsibilities of being there. The tragedy was in what was done there and our statement of principles did not I think recommend doing anything that meant the betrayal of a people or a principle, nor was it a weak surrender to armed pressure or a naive mis' understanding of a political situation.
Those are the minister's words. Then later the minister referred to
My country which-
In his words:
-was not represented at Munich.
Munich was evidently greatly on the minister's mind because he returned to it again on November 12 before the United Nations in Paris. Here are the words that he then used:
It is always easy to secure peace and a kind of security on the other man's terms. But we know where that can lead-to the humiliation of a Chamberlain or the death of a Mazaryk.
I am not one of those who applauded Munich. I was not satisfied then, and I have never been satisfied since, as to the wisdom of what was done there. I felt deeply the abandonment of the Czechs and the loss of the Skoda works and the Czech divisions. As I said a moment ago, nothing that has happened since has definitely satisfied me of the wisdom of what was done. But notwithstanding my views, it seemed to me that at that time any fair-minded man would feel that the Statesmen who were carrying the appalling responsibility of that time were entitled to sympathy. I have refreshed my memory by rereading the press of that time, and it recalls the tension and the appalling anxiety which was felt by people who had not yet really girded themselves to face war again. We recall the stories of trenches in Hyde Park and all that kind of thing.
Again I say that no man of fairness or common sense should have criticized the decision except in moderate words, and never should have criticized it except as an error of judgment. How different are the words


which I have already read such as "betrayal", "weak surrender" and "naive misunderstanding". I found them to be extremely jarring. The minister knows the meaning of words, and it will not surprise him to know that the dictionary defines "betrayal" as "a treacherous giving up to an enemy". One would have thought that the minister's own difficulties in reaching conclusions in the Korean affair would have prevented him from using language of this kind. For example, I contrast his language with the language of Mr. Eden, who had resigned from the Chamberlain government, who was extremely dubious about Munich but who hailed Munich as at any rate a "respite", who referred to the "unparalleled ordeal" that Chamberlain as prime minister had been through, and who said that the people of England owed him "a measureless debt of gratitude" for his "sincerity and pertinacity". Those were the words of a man who really did not approve of Munich but who understood and sympathized with the appalling responsibility which was carried.
I now return to one other point. The minister referred to Canada not being represented. The clear implication of that reference is that there would have been no "betrayal", no "weak surrender" and no "naive misunderstanding" if only we had been there. You will remember the facts, Mr. Speaker. What are the facts? Was the government of Canada silent? Was it critical or noncommittal as to what happened at Munich? What did Mr. King, Mr. Lapointe and their colleagues say at that time? It is quite clear. It is contained in a cable sent by the then prime minister, Mr. King, immediately after the events of Munich, in the following terms:
Ottawa, September 29, 1938
The Right Honourable Neville Chamberlain,



P.C., M.P.,

[Stage Direction]
Prime Minister of Great Britain,
10 Downing Street,
London, England.
The heart of Canada is rejoicing tonight at the success which has crowned your unremitting efforts for peace. May I convey to you the warm congratulations of the Canadian people, and with them, an expression of their gratitude, which is felt from one end of the dominion to the other. My colleagues in the government join with me in unbounded admiration at the service you have rendered mankind. Your achievements in the past month alone will ensure you an abiding and illustrious place among the great conciliators whom the United Kingdom, the British commonwealth of nations and the whole world will continue to honour. On the very brink of chaos, with passions flaming, and armies marching, the voice of reason has found a way out of the conflict which no people in their heart desired, but none seemed able to avert. A turning point in the world's history will be reached if, as we hope, tonight's agreement means a halt

to the mad race of arms, and a new start in building the partnership of all peoples. May you have health and strength to carry your great work to its completion.
W. L. Mackenzie King.
Here is the view expressed by the Canadian government. It is not my view, but it was held by people far more important than I am; by statesmen of Britain, by statesmen of the commonwealth and, as I have just indicated, by the government of Canada. In any event, this cable makes nonsense or mincemeat of the minister's implication that if we had been represented at Munich all might have been different.
However attractive it may be to criticize decisions after the event, I suggest that it is ungenerous and it sometimes has pitfalls.
(Translation):
Mr. J. I. Rochefort (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the policy laid down by the member for Bellechasse, my remarks will be brief. I would like to discuss certain current problems mentioned in the speech from the throne.
It would seem fitting, however, before I come to the heart of the matter, to point out the connection of my constituency, that of Champlain, with Ottawa, our federal capital, through the participation of our national madonna, Notre-Dame-du-Cap, who came here to preside over the great sittings of the Marian congress. The Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. St. Laurent) himself was pleased to consecrate our whole country to this madonna. Since then, she has travelled through the provinces continually, thus accomplishing a great pilgrimage through the country. Let us hope that soon a basilica, which will be the pride of the constituency of Champlain and of the whole country, will be built at Cap-de-la-Madeleine, close to her present shrine.
Mr. Speaker, may I draw a parallel to show that the people of Champlain county are living happily and rather comfortably in spite of a comparatively high rise in the cost of living.
You may rest assured that this rise does not frighten them in the least. To prove this, let us simply look at some industries, especially the paper mill, which is the pride of my district. The paper-machine operator earns $845 per month, because he works a full month, while, in 1931, he sometimes worked only two or three days a week, earning $200 a month. In 1942, on a six-day week he was getting $250 a month. The assistant operator earns $2.92 an hour, or 94699-981
The Address-Mr. Rochefort $23.36 a day. Our paper-makers make up six categories, the first earning $2.45 per hour. Wages in the other categories follow a downward scale to $1.27 per hour, for the sixth category. Their wages are exactly 300 and sometimes 400 per cent higher than in 1932, and 100 per cent higher than in 1942. In fact the ordinary labourer or yardman at the paper mills now gets $1.26 per hour. That is the minimum wage in the paper industry.
In addition, working conditions are now completely changed, the workers enjoying a three-week vacation with pay, holidays with pay, a pension plan and improved sanitary conditions. In my constituency, machinists, casters and pattern-makers get $1.78 an hour, compared with 60 and 78 cents in 1942. In my own city, young girls in the textile industry are earning $37.50 per week, while they were earning only $9.60 in 1932 and $18.00 in 1942. Certain paper workers, those making paper bags, cement bags and such, were getting 50 cents in 1932 and 76 cents in 1942; they now get over $1.30 an hour, in 1951.
From 1930 to 1935, when the Tory party was running this country, our workers were compelled to queue up outside city halls to be handed welfare tokens worth $5.60 per week. At night they headed for the Meurling shelter or the breadline. In spite of the high cost of living, do you think that our people would change their present situation? Do you think that our people, in spite of the high cost of living, would exchange their present conditions with high salaries, obviously easy circumstances, social legislation which our government can be proud of, such as family allowances, old age pensions, blind persons' pensions or unemployment insurance, for the misery they underwent during the days of the Tory regime, between 1930 and 1935? At that time our country was going hungry under mountains of wheat which it had no money to buy. In every walk of life, from the lumberjack in the forest to the highly-paid workers of our factories, large and small, the standard of living has risen in such a way as to cause them to forget the increased cost of living. We therefore hear few complaints levelled at the present administration,. On the contrary the people are happy to possess the leader, the cabinet, and the administration they now enjoy. They would be quick to take offence at the various doleful ballads which the hon. members of the opposition have been singing into our ears. That is what I have to say about workers and working



The Address-Mr. Rochefort conditions generally as compared with the rise in the cost of living and even inflation.
May I toe allowed to bring to the notice of the government the question of national health. A few years ago a grant of thirty million dollars, to be spread over five years, was voted by the government at Ottawa with a view to assisting in the erection of hospitals. My own constituency has already received a grant of $139,500 for the construction of our hospital at Cap-de-la-Madeleine and this grant has been paid in cash. When these grants are compared with those of the Quebec provincial government, which are spread over a period of 20 years, it will be seen that, during that period, the religious orders which benefit from these latter grants pay as much in interest as the amount of the grant itself.
My plea to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) deals with the establishment of cancer prevention clinics in the big hospitals of our large centres. A few days ago, I visited a sick relative at the Montreal Radium Institute. At that time, this institute was celebrating the twenty-fifth anniversary of its foundation and I was grieved to see the difficult conditions under which the sick are treated. The former city hall of an erstwhile bankrupt municipality is used as a hospital. There are only two private rooms and even these contain two beds. The rest is made up of a public ward for men and another for women. There is only one lavatory for the men and the same condition exists for the women. Those patients however are taken care of by specialists who reflect credit on our race.
The Quebec provincial government continues to turn a deaf ear to the reiterated requests of the medical profession which is loudly demanding a modern hospital. Hundreds of patients are waiting for their turn, due to a lack of space, and in the meantime their ailments get worse. And, in the case of cancer, a few weeks' delay in getting treated is enough to make the treatment useless and the disease incurable.
May I therefore be permitted to request the minister to grant to certain hospitals in our large centres the assistance required for the establishment of cancer clinics or simply to allow radium treatment for the patients. Let scholarships be given to our young doctors so that they may specialize in the large centres. Last year, more than 16,731 persons

died from cancerous diseases in Canada and among that number more than 500 were from the province of Quebec.
It is time to wage a relentless war against that disease to eradicate it, as was done in the case of tuberculosis. There again the provincial governments should get together with the federal government in order to put up a common front in this battle.
I wish to say a few words about the National Housing Act. The government should spare no effort to facilitate the construction of houses if they do not want the country to face a few years hence a greater crisis than in 1945. Houses do not cost appreciably more than they did two years ago, especially if the payments are spread over a period of twenty years. There again, the only obstacle is that the down payment is too high. All industrial areas in Canada should be considered as defence production areas. Indeed in each of those areas industry is producing for this new defence department.
In addition, there are 80 housing co-operatives in our province; unfortunately, only half of them operate because the members are unable to pay the down payment now required. There are 6,000 members of these co-operatives and 1,200 only are house owners. In addition, an equal number, 6,000 people, are on a waiting list expecting to join the co-operatives or waiting for projects to materialize.
In the Mauricie district, where co-operatives are well developed, only 400 units consisting of single houses and duplexes were built in the city of Three Rivers. At Oap-de-la-Made-leine, the La Familiale co-operative, in operation for just about a year, put up 25 single houses the first year. It will reach the 60 units mark in two years. Under the national housing legislation, the Compagnie de construction Sainte-Madeleine built 48 houses this year and aims to build others next year at the same rate. All in all 120 new houses will be built at Cap-de-la-Madeleine as a result of this legislation.
I therefore ask the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters) to facilitate the administration of this law, as far as the working class is concerned, by reducing the down payment. The government and the people would thus be relieved of a burden which threatens to become very heavy indeed. Family, society, public health, happiness and family spirit all benefit from home ownership.

I might add that my constituency has one of the finest of veterans' establishments, thanks to the understanding and the spirit of good will which inspired our municipal administration-which I presided! over at the time-and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Thanks to this plan more than eighty veterans have benefited from the act and the advantages it provides.
From the agricultural point of view, there is only one threat to our farmers, that is the disappearance of our herds. Because of the high cost of meat, our breeders are now selling their stock at a high price. There might however be a real danger in this; this might constitute a serious threat to our dairy industry. On the other hand, our farmers as a class seem to be fairly comfortable. Farmers' sons are more apt to stay on the farm and even to start farming on their own. Should the farm loans act be amended to permit more loans to be made in the province of Quebec, it would help to develop what constitutes our real source of wealth, the soil.
I wish to congratulate the government for having adopted the recommendations of the Massey commission. I think we should ignore narrow-minded persons who sometimes criticize what is beyond their grasp and who, instead of considering the advancement of science in this country, think only in terms of politics. On one particular Sunday afternoon one premier in particular was praising the Massey report at the very moment when, in another part of the province, one of his ministers was ranting against it. Provincial rights in matters of education must be respected, but how can they be impaired when they are not even remotely touched upon? Those grants have nothing in common with the patronage seen in- some of the provinces, in my own, for example, where the government is more inclined to put up buildings than to make a moral contribution to the cause of education and health. Federal grants will allow the creation of faculties leading to university degrees:	they will
enable universities to hold professors now eager to leave because they earn four times as much in their private practices. In philosophy, theology and canon law our teachers are the equal of, and some even say superior to, their European opposite numbers. And yet, these faculties were built up at great sacrifice by the boards of governors of our universities. These boards of governors will be able to make the same effort with respect
The Address-Mr. Gibson to letters, arts and sciences and thanks to those statutory grants they will be relieved from future financial worries. The government do not require that only their chosen representatives sit on those boards of directors; they do not require, as a condition to the granting of larger sums, that director so-and-so be removed, as is sometimes done in the province of Quebec. It is simply and purely financial aid. It would be denying advancement to one's race to oppose those grants; it would be impeding the progress of arts and sciences in this country; it would be depriving our own talented people of the education that this aid to our Canadian universities might give them whereas they are now compelled to seek that education elsewhere. The legislation may not be perfect. Amendments may be enacted later, if not immediately, as certain provinces with few students will receive large grants whilst others with many students will receive smaller grants. To my mind this grant should be evenly distributed and based on the number of pupils per province.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the government for what they have done for my constituency, in the field of social legislation or through the establishment of war industries which are today operating under private management. I also wish to thank them for having established there an airport which grows more important every day and which should soon become as active as it has been heretofore. The people of my constituency, Mr. Speaker, are happy to live under an administration led by such a great leader.
(Text):


Mr. J. L. Gibson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, it certainly is not my intention to delay the taking of the vote, because I feel that probably this debate has lasted long enough. In my view the reason we have had so many speakers making several speeches is that not many cabinet ministers have taken part in the debate, and we have not had many answers. However, in fairness we can say that many of them have been travelling all over the world, and probably have not had an opportunity to take part.
I should like to speak about the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). I appreciate the fact that he has been doing very important work in Europe, but I would like to think that when he returns he will have a chance to read in Hansard some of the remarks that have been made by numerous members on all sides of the house with respect to credit restrictions on automobiles. I think it is
1538	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Gibson pretty well recognized by all of us that motor car dealers in Canada have had a difficult time. I would like to feel that when he returns he will give sympathetic consideration to representations that have been made not only on their behalf but on behalf of the people who buy automobiles. I would point out, as I did in my first speech in this debate, that the factory cost of an automobile should be the determining factor, when one has to put up 50 per cent of the purchase price of it.
In my earlier speech I said that in my riding a logger who wanted to buy a new automobile had to put up $200 more in cash and pay about $18 more per month to purchase an automobile than would a citizen at Windsor or Oshawa. I appreciate the fact that this government is not going to do anything about equalizing automobile costs throughout the country. I feel, however, that the people in my constituency should not have to put up that extra $200 or the extra $18 per month because of the credit restrictions. I would ask the parliamentary assistant to call that matter to the attention of the minister when he returns. I should also like to point out to him, as I did in my first speech, that there is no public transportation system in my riding, as is the case in a great many other rural ridings in Canada. I should like him to see if there is any possible way of lifting the present credit restrictions on used cars. I am sure it would be of great assistance to the motor industry and, despite anything the economists may say, that it would contribute nothing to inflation; and we would not have large numbers of used cars lying around which could be put in service.
There is one other point I should like to mention. I want to commend the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Laing) on the fine statement he made as to the feelings of the maritimes and the west with regard to the St. Lawrence seaway project. I hope the government will not feel, by virtue of the fact that they have a substantial surplus this year, that they should make this year's taxpayers pay for the whole cost of the seaway out of the surplus. I hope the government has no idea of making the surplus look smaller by a process of that kind. I should also like to express my appreciation of the views of the hon. member for Vancouver South with respect to the necessity for continued public works in both the maritimes and the western provinces. I certainly must say that so far as the people of Comox-Alberni are concerned, they have received very fair treatment from the government in this regard, and I hope that will continue. I should like to send to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) a photograph that I have.


When the time comes for the estimates I am sure he will give this matter careful consideration. I should like to send him a picture of the breakwater at Campbell River showing the tremendous congestion experienced there by the fishing fleets in trying to obtain safe mooring. We have asked him several times for an appropriation for dredging at this particular spot, and I would request him to give the matter serious consideration this year.
I have one other proposal. I am not going to enumerate all the things Comox-Alberni needs because it would take a great deal of time, and I would not want to wear out the patience of the house and the minister. However, I should like to refer to the small-boat basin at French creek. [ have a petition from a large number of residents of Parksville and the Qualicum area asking the minister's consideration of further dredging at that point, and I would ask him to give the matter his usual careful attention.


Gordon Graydon: I was paired with the
Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: I was paired with the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. McCubbin). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Hazen Robert Argue: Hon.
members will know that for the past number of weeks I have repeatedly advocated that the government should take steps to assist farmers in financing the crop that is out under the snow, and should also make advance payments on farm-stored grain. I believe the government has delayed too long in bringing in legislation or making an announcement of the steps it intends to take. From a radio news report over the week end I learned that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) had announced in western Canada that steps would be taken at this session of parliament to help farmers who were in financial difficulties because of unthreshed grain. As a result of that news report I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) the following question on the orders of the day:
In view of the radio news reports concerning an announcement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in the west over the week end, can the Prime Minister say whether legislation will be introduced at this session to provide payments on farm-stored grain and financial assistance to farmers with grain out under the snow?
To that the Prime Minister replied that he was not in a position to announce such
The Address-Mr. Argue legislation. The government was having the matter investigated, and just as soon as the government came to a decision the Prime Minister would advise the house. Opposition members have criticized a statement reported to have been made by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) while in Europe. Today the Minister of National Defence said he thought important statements of government policy should be made in parliament. I certainly agree. When the government is prepared to make important announcements of government policy, and when parliament is in session, those announcements should be made here.
I have reports in two dairy papers of an announcement credited to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Let me say that, while I do not feel the reported announcement goes far enough, I hope the government will do what has been announced. But it seems strange to me that the minister could make an announcement in western Canada concerning legislation that would be brought down during this session of parliament, and the Prime Minister have no knowledge of a government decision concerning that legislation. The report in the Winnipeg Tribune is headed "Grain Growers to Get Early '52 Aid." The front page of the Winnipeg Free Press had a big heading "Farmers May Get Aid Early in '52". The article has this to say:
Right Hon. C. D. Howe, trade minister, said Friday that financial aid for distressed prairie grain growers is in prospect for early in the new year.
The minister, in charge of grain marketing, said at the annual meeting of the Alberta wheat pool he is prepared to recommend legislation for interim credit for farmers with unthreshed grain and those who, for one reason or another, have been unable to deliver their grain to country elevators.
Mr. Howe said the legislation would be introduced at the current session of parliament in the expectation the plan would be in operation by the early part of January.


John George Diefenbaker: He must have had a cabinet meeting out west.


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes, the Minister of Trade and Commerce must have had a one-man oabinet meeting -out west. This afternoon the Prime Minister said no decision had been reached as to a method of financing farmers with grain out under the snow or stored in the granaries. According to this Canadian Press dispatch the Minister of Trade and Commerce said that legislation would be introduced at the current session of parliament in the expectation that the plan would be in operation by the early part of January. I thought that since the Minister of National Defence had made a statement in Europe, and had been castigated over that reported statement, every cabinet minister would be
1538	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Argue most careful that he did not announce government policy outside of parliament while the house was in session. I cannot understand why the Minister of Trade and Commerce should have any right to make a statement of government policy in Calgary, when the Prime Minister says that no decision has been made concerning that announced policy.
All I can do now is ask the Prime Minister if he knows what legislation the government intends to introduce this session in order to finance^ the grain that is out under the snow, or finance the farmers with crops in the granaries. Does the government intend to introduce this type of legislation? Will the government's plan, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce has said, come into effect next January? I hope the announcement will be made, and I hope it is a good announcement. But I cannot object too strongly to one cabinet minister making an important announcement of government policy outside of parliament when the Prime Minister says the government has made no decision in that regard. Whenever the cabinet meeting is held, and whenever a plan is considered, I hope it may be brought into effect before January. Christmas is coming, and parents like to buy gifts for their families and friends. The local storekeepers like to receive something on their charge accounts before Christmas, so they too may have an enjoyable Christmas. Surely if this plan is to come into effect, it should come into effect immediately. Farmers should not have to wait until early January.
This much is not clear. If the government does in fact bring in such legislation, will it provide for an advance on grain stored on the farms? I hope that is done. Some such legislation should be permanently on the statute books of Canada, and it should provide that farmers can receive 75 per cent of the potential price as an advance on farm-stored grain. The situation we have had this fall-congested elevators, farmers unable to deliver even their small initial quota, farmers having to truck flax and other grains as much as 75 miles away from their local delivery points in order to get a few dollars-is nothing new. We had the same type of congestion and the same situation one year ago; it was experienced perhaps to a lesser degree, nevertheless it was a serious situation of the same kind.
I believe it is time we had on the statute books of Canada legislation whereby in the fall a farmer who has threshed his grain can obtain a 75 per cent advance on the initial price. When there is a situation such as we have today, where farmers are unable to market their grain through no fault of


their own, when the government's transport controller has been unable adequately to cope with the situation, at a time when the farmers have millions upon millions of bushels of threshed grain in their yards, in their fields and in their granaries but are unable to deliver that grain, they should be able to get a 75 per cent advance of the initial price without interest charge to the farmer. If the farmer had an opportunity to market his grain or if there was space in the local elevators, I would say that he should not ask for a 75 per cent advance without cost merely because he might find it inconvenient or difficult to deliver his grain at that time. But where farmers, through no fault of their own, are unable to market their current crop the government should bring in legislation to provide a 75 per cent advance of the initial price without interest cost to the farmers.
I had expected, Mr. Speaker, that an announcement in this regard would have been made long ago. On November 5 I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) whether the government had then reached a decision on making an advance on farm-stored grain. The Prime Minister replied as follows, as reported at page 696 of Hansard:
No; no firm decision has yet been made. The whole situation has been and is under serious consideration by the wheat board and the Department of Trade and Commerce. When a decision is arrived at, it will be announced in the house without its being necessary to prompt that announcement.
That is no doubt true. But even with a good deal of prompting we cannot get an announcement from the Prime Minister. We get, however, an announcement by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) out west at a time when parliament is in session.
Then on November 12 the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) delivered a speech in the house in which he had quite a little to say about the serious problem facing western farmers at the present time. The Minister of Agriculture even went so far as to suggest that one of the reasons farmers were having difficulty in harvesting their crops was that they were using such large equipment that they could not seed or put in their crops at the proper time in the spring. Such a suggestion cannot be taken too seriously. If it were not for the technological advances in agriculture, if farmers did not have tractors and other large modern machinery, probably they would not have seeded any more than half the 1951 acreage on time. No matter what the farmers may think of the advice of the Minister of Agriculture on other matters, I am sure they will pay little attention to his advice on the

type of equipment a farmer should use. They are not going back to the horse and buggy days.
The Minister of Agriculture informed the house that he was going west, that he would have a meeting with the Saskatchewan wheat pool delegates and that at that time there would be under consideration steps the government could take in order to alleviate this situation. The Minister of Agriculture made that trip west and he spoke to the wheat pool delegates in session. According to the report in the press he said to the delegates: If you have any suggestions to make to me, as Minister of Agriculture, about ways and means of financing this year's crop and of helping to correct this situation, I should like to hear them. He was given the views of the wheat pool delegates. The Minister of Agriculture had another conference in Regina. As a result of that conference there is a front page picture in the Regina Leader-Post of Saturday, November 17. Right under the photo we find the following text:
Farm aid meeting: How to give financial help to farmers who have been unable to harvest the 1951 crop was the subject Friday afternoon at a meeting in the executive council chamber at the legislative building. Shown above in the premier's office are (left to right) C. H. Fisher, Lipton, president of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities; Les Bright, Regina, secretary of the Saskatchewan Federation of Agriculture; Federal Agriculture Minister James G. Gardiner, and Premier T. C. Douglas. Also at the meeting were C. G. Bryden, Regina, secretary of S.A.R.M., and members of the Saskatchewan cabinet.
The Minister of Agriculture met with the Saskatchewan wheat pool delegates on Friday, November 16. On the same date he had a meeting with the Saskatchewan government and other representatives of the farm movement in Saskatchewan. As I say, that was on November 16. As we all know, following that meeting or shortly after it the Minister of Agriculture made a trip to Rome, Italy, in order to take part in the food and agriculture organization conference over there. Twelve days after the minister's meeting in Regina, that is on November 28, I asked the Prime Minister, as reported at page 1400:
Has he received a report from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) of the meeting he held in Regina with provincial government representatives and farm leaders on methods of assistance to western farmers?
Is the Prime Minister in a position to announce financial aid to farmers on unthreshed grain as forecast by the Minister of Trade and Commerce on November 15?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The answer to both questions is no.
The Minister of Agriculture announced in parliament that he was going out west to meet farm leaders. He went out west and
The Address-Mr. Argue met those farm leaders. Following that meeting he had a meeting with Saskatchewan government officials and other farm leaders to discuss ways and means of providing financial assistance to prairie farmers in this year of emergency, and the Minister of Agriculture never reported on the meeting to the cabinet. The Minister of Agriculture went to some other place. I wonder what the purposes of these meetings were, the meeting with the premier of Saskatchewan-


James Garfield Gardiner: I want to put my hon. friend in possession of the facts. I made my report to the minister concerned, namely the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Percy Ellis Wright: He made his announcement in an interview.


Hazen Robert Argue: The Minister of Agriculture says he reported to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. But the Minister of Trade and Commerce also failed to report to the government. Is that any better? If two of them make a mistake, is that any better than for one to have made a mistake? I do not think so. I do not think any minister of the government should announce in parliament that he is going out west, or to some other place, to meet a farm delegation to discuss certain matters, and twelve days later fail to have reported on the matter to the government. What purpose could be served by the Minister of Agriculture having that meeting, taking up the time of important people, taking up the valuable time of hundreds of wheat pool delegates, when he has made no report to the cabinet of his discussions?
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether you would call it 6.15 o'clock?


Mr. Sinnoit:: No.


Mr. Cruickshank:: Take all the time you wish; take a couple of weeks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: If it is not the wish of the house, Mr. Speaker, to adjourn at this time I do not mind speaking for another three minutes until it is 6.15 o'clock.


Mr. Maclnnis:: The hon. member for
Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) and the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Sinnott) do not want to hear the farmers' case put to the house.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Do not worry about the
member for Springfield; he will look after himself.


Hazen Robert Argue: As I said, this situation is
serious. It has not developed in the last few weeks. It is a situation that most westerners

The Address-Mr. Argue knew would come as far back as last spring, if we again had a large crop. In April of last session I asked the government to appoint a controller to relieve the box car situation. The government did nothing in that regard for a few months. Finally a controller was appointed. During this session I have been pressing the government to remove the congestion at elevator points, particularly at those points on the Canadian Pacific Railway lines. Anyone acquainted with the situation out there knows the congestion is generally much more severe at Canadian Pacific Railway points than at Canadian National Railway points. I have had letters from Saskatchewan farmers suggesting to me that if by appointing a controller the government cannot get the Canadian Pacific Railway to provide ample cars to move farmers' grain, they should take stronger steps and nationalize the Canadian Pacific Railway. The situation is truly desperate, Mr. Speaker, and so far the government has done very little to relieve the present hardship amongst western farmers.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Six-fifteen.
At 6.15 p.m. the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, there are just two other matters in connection with wheat I should like to emphasize at this time, before I go on to deal with the matter of farm income tax. We in this group were pleased indeed with the affirmative vote given by the Manitoba farmers in the plebiscite when they were asked whether they wished the Canadian wheat board to continue the marketing of coarse grains. Eighty-nine per cent of the farmers of Manitoba voted in favour of the wheat board method of marketing coarse grains. I feel confident that if such a vote were held in Saskatchewan we would do even better than the farmers of Manitoba, and would register a 95 per cent affirmative vote for the wheat board.
If western farmers believe so strongly in the wheat board method of marketing grain, then I say there is no longer any excuse, if indeed there ever was one, for the government allowing the grain exchange to stay open now and gamble in flax and rye. I say the grain exchange should be closed, and closed permanently, and the method by which it can be closed is for the government to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, as I hope it will, to include flax and rye under the operations of the wheat board. I feel

also the time has now come when the government should direct the wheat board to cease using the grain exchange in selling oats and barley. Through the Manitoba vote the farmers in western Canada have demonstrated that they are unalterably opposed to the grain exchange. Therefore the government should now place the marketing of all forms of grain exclusively under the Canadian wheat board.
I wish to say further, as I have already on a number of occasions this session, that the government cannot justifiably hold down to the international wheat agreement ceiling the price received by producers for domestic wheat. The international wheat agreement ceiling is now over 50 cents a bushel below the price received by the Canadian wheat board for class II wheat. The United States government gives the United States farmer the highest price, even though that government has to pay its farmers from the federal treasury as much as 73 cents a bushel on the wheat they produce. I say the very least the government of Canada can do is meet the request of the Saskatchewan wheat pool and the farmers' unions that the price of domestic wheat be increased at least to the extent of the increase in the farmers' cost of production.
I now come to the matter of farm income tax and the unfair and almost scandalous manner in which, through the Department of National Revenue, the government has collected very high income tax from farmers in certain provinces, but has failed almost completely to collect income tax from the farmers in certain other provinces. As a member representing a farm constituency I take second place to no one, either in the past or at present, in advocating that farmers should be assessed fairly for income tax purposes. In the past I have spoken out for increased exemptions to farmers, urging that certain items should be considered as expenses, and I am glad to say the government has gone a long way toward meeting those requests.
I believe the government could take other steps by allowing certain improvements on the farm as current expenses, rather than as additions to capital value. Having said that, however, I wish to object most strenuously to the way the government has gone about collecting income tax from farmers. I noticed with a good deal of interest a return brought down a few days ago in answer to a question placed on the order paper by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair). I congratulate him upon having brought the matter of income tax in respect of farmers to the attention of the government.

I have here a table prepared from income tax statistics and from certain figures in the return brought down for the hon. member for Battle River, and I have been wondering whether, to aid discussion, I might have it placed on Hansard.
The Address-Mr. Argue Mr. Speaker:	Has the hon. member
unanimous consent to have this table placed on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hazen Robert Argue: The table is as follows:
Province	Income tax paid by farmers on 1949 income	Net farm income 1949 (million $)	No. of farmers and stock raisers (i) (including active service) 1941 census	Net income per farm eland stock raiser	Income tax paid per farmer and stock raiser$	$	$	*	$Manitoba	1,585,000	146-5	54,739	2,678	28-95Ontario	1,940,000	441-2	161,607	2,730	12-00Quebec	51,000	250-9	134,013	1,872	[DOT]38Saskatchewan	6,647,000	378-5	125,548	3,015	52-94Alberta	7,153,000	278-5	93,843	2,968	76-22British Columbia	544,000	54-2	25,252	2,146	21-54New Brunswick	11,000	32-1	24,751	1,297	[DOT]44Nova Scotia	33,000	21-1	22,683	930	1-46Prince Edward Island	4,000	12-8	10,492	1,220	[DOT]38
(i) Includes persons reporting farming and stock raising as their main occupation.
Hon. members will note that the table shows the amounts of income tax collected by the government, by provinces. These figures are for the income of 1949, and it will be noted from the table that in Manitoba the income tax paid by farmers in that year amounted to $1,585,000; in Ontario, $1,940,000; in Quebec, $51,000; in Saskatchewan, $6,647,000; in Alberta, $7,153,000; in British Columbia, $544,000; in New Brunswick, $11,000; in Nova Scotia, $33,000 and in Prince Edward Island, $4,000. Of course one does not expect the department to collect the same amount of income tax in each province. The amount of income tax collected from the farmers of any province will depend upon the number of farmers, and the average income received.


Mr. George:: And the amount of wheat raised.


Hazen Robert Argue: 
Mr. McCann:: The same effort.


Hazen Robert Argue: -to collect income tax in the province of Ontario.


Mr. Low:: If they did the effort was a failure.


Hazen Robert Argue: It was a real failure. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) cannot give a good reason why the farmers of Manitoba should pay two and a half times as much income tax as that paid by the farmers of Ontario, when the Manitoba farmer received a smaller net income for the year. There is no answer to that statement.
I come to the province of Quebec where the farmers earned somewhat less, an average net income of $1,872 for the year
1542	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Sinnott 1949. Out of an average net income per farmer of $1,872 in the province of Quebec the government has collected the fabulous sum in income tax of 38 cents per farmer.


Mr. Proudfoot:: What about the number of dependents in the province of Quebec compared with other provinces?


Hazen Robert Argue: I know families are larger in Quebec. I admit that. I know that on a per farm basis the farmers of Quebec cannot be expected to pay as much income tax as other farmers-


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: What are you complaining about, then?


Hazen Robert Argue: -but look at the average net income per Quebec farmer in that year. It is $1,872. Let us take a look at Nova Scotia. The average net income of farmers in that province is nothing like $1,872. It is $930, less than half the average net income of the Quebec farmer; but instead of paying 38 cents per farmer in income tax the farmers of Nova Scotia paid $1.46. The Nova Scotia farmer paid almost four times as much income tax as the Quebec farmer, and on half the income.


John Hugh Proudfoot: What about their dependents?


Hazen Robert Argue: The difference is not that great. If my hon. friend thinks the difference is that great, he has even less intelligence than I give him credit for having.


John Hugh Proudfoot: What is the difference then?


Solon Earl Low: We would like to find out.


Hazen Robert Argue: Let us look at the income tax paid by the British Columbia farmer. On the average he has fewer dependents than the Quebec farmer, and he earns almost $300 more per year than the Quebec farmer. He earns $2,146 per year; but with one-fifth as many farmers in British Columbia as in the province of Quebec the British Columbia farmer pays almost sixty times as much income tax. From these statistics it is pretty clear that the government is playing politics in the income tax department so far as farmers are concerned.


James Joseph McCann: You are crazy.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Hazen Robert Argue: Everybody knows that the bulk of the government's support comes from Ontario and Quebec, and comparatively speaking very little effort is made to obtain income tax from the farmers of those provinces-


Walter Edward Harris: Oh, nonsense.


Hazen Robert Argue: -compared with the income tax collected in the four western provinces and in the province of Nova Scotia.


An hon. Member:: Whom are you trying to fool?


Hazen Robert Argue: I believe that certain things are necessary-


An hon. Member:: Why don't you move there then?


Hazen Robert Argue: -by way of increased exemptions for farmers so far as income tax is concerned; but when the government of Canada lays down a law I for one believe it should be applied equally to all people in all provinces of Canada. I do not believe the income tax law is being applied in that manner. For the consideration of the house I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright):
That the following words be added to the address:
"This house regrets, however, that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to make provision for the immediate payment to producers of 75 per cent of the initial price of farm stored grain."
I move this amendment because I think such a provision is absolutely necessary. I move it because, in spite of repeated requests I have made to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), the government has failed to date to make the necessary announcement.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of speaking in this debate at all until-


An hon. Member:: Why?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: You won't say anything, so don't worry.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: -the very inexperienced
young member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), with his fantastic statements, with his pretence of farming ability-


An hon. Member:: What do you call yourself?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: -made so many accusations in the house tonight. He reminds me of the little boy crying for Castoria. When he thinks he has something that will be of political advantage he comes crying on the steps of the government to give and give and give.


An hon. Member:: He is not peddling oil.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: In my opinion the time to come to the government for assistance is after every effort has been made by the individual himself. With the break in the weather in the west at the present time, many hundreds of thousands of' acres are being harvested. I checked in Hansard on what the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), who talks as if his moulh was full of potatoes, said

about my not wanting the farmers' case to be put forward in the house. I want the farmers' case to be put forward in the house, but in such a way that the house will understand it in the right light.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Start all over again.


An hon. Member:: You had better sit down.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I am not like the hon. member for Vancouver East. He made the statement in the house that he had never hired a man and never would. I want to know how Canada can progress under such conditions.


Donald MacInnis: They made progress by hiring me.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Your job won't last long after the next election.


Donald MacInnis: Oh, I have heard that before.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: It is quite easy to understand that, with the equipment we have to harvest grain at the present time, all the grain cannot be harvested, delivered and stored at one time. It is only reasonable to believe that the farmers of western Canada generally, as in my own constituency, have the balance of the year in which to deliver their grain. So far as the amendment moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia is concerned, it is just a political dodge to try to make his position secure in his own constituency, and I am not falling for it. I will vote against his amendment.


Percy Ellis Wright: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on the amendment, but in doing so I am not going to reply to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat because I think his words are answer enough to themselves. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) concerns a matter which has had considerable attention over a number of years. Some eight or nine years ago legislation was passed in the United States under which they pay up to 90 per cent of the floor price for grain stored on the farm. That has worked most successfully in getting deliveries of grain spread over a period of time rather than having it all rushed to market immediately after being threshed.
That has been one of our great difficulties In western Canada in the last two or three years, particularly when large crops have been harvested under adverse conditions resulting in a serious piling up of grain at both country and terminal elevators. This is due in large part to the fact that the grain is out of condition, and when grain is out of condition it takes more working space in
The Address-Mr. Wright both the country and terminal elevators in order to handle it. The result has been congestion all along the line.
As the hon. member for Assiniboia has said, last year we asked that a controller be appointed to relieve the situation, which was serious at that time. The government delayed taking action but finally did appoint a controller to relieve the congestion which existed this year. That controller has done a reasonably good job and has tried to keep grain moving. Last year the principal bottleneck was at the head of the lakes. Boats were not available for wheat carriage, being mainly engaged in the hauling of ore. Boats could not be obtained at the proper time to take the grain from the terminal elevators at Port Arthur and Fort William. Even with the best the controller has been able to do this year a serious situation still exists in western Canada. I have in my hand a report from the last issue of the Western Producer of November 29, which states:
Although harvesting operations have been virtually at a standstill during all of November, country elevator congestion has shown little improvement during the month. At the end of last week stock in store in Saskatchewan pool country elevators totalled 39,926,000 bushels as compared with 40,363,000 bushels one week ago and 41,589,000 bushels on October 31.
And again:
Last week, Saskatchewan Pool Elevators Limited received 1,926 box cars for the entire system as compared with 1,686 for the previous week, but deliveries from farms also increased to 3,225,000 bushels as compared with 2,656,000 bushels the week before.
They are barely holding their position, let alone relieving it.
Congestion in lakehead terminals presents a similar picture. With the close of navigation expected early in December pool terminals at the head of the lakes held total stocks of more than
11.000.	000 bushels last week. At the peak period early in the month, stocks amounted to almost
15.000.	000 bushels.
It goes on to give further statistics. As a result of the situation that existed, grain backed up on the farms, and farmers have not enough cash to meet their commitments to storekeepers and creditors. If the government would bring in some legislation to provide for payment for storage of grain on the farm it would not only relieve the situation this year to some extent but would be good permanent legislation.
I think the amendment is good, but to meet the situation that exists this year, some additional assistance is necessary. In the area which I represent approximately 60 per cent of the grain has not been harvested. It is lying out under six inches to one foot of snow, and it is doubtful whether much of it

full carload of one particular grade to deliver at one time. He therefore cannot use the car order book unless he uses it in conjunction with one or more of his neighbours. This makes the position particularly difficult. I believe the transport controller should see to it that cars are delivered at elevator points in conformity with the wishes of the farmers who are delivering the grain at those points.
I hope the government will give serious consideration to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia. As I said before, I do not think it goes far enough to meet the needs of all sections of the west at this time, but it is a step in the right direction. It is a good piece of permanent legislation which we should have on our statute books.


Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly had not expected to speak again in this debate, but in view of the amendment that has been moved I feel obliged to say a few words. 1 was somewhat surprised that the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Sinnott) should refer to this as a political amendment. To me a suggestion of that kind is idiotic. I am sure those farmers who today find themselves in the unfortunate position of having the greater part of their crop out in the snow or who, having threshed their crop, are unable to sell it, will not regard this question as a political one but rather as one of extreme urgency.
In the past we in this group have taken a stand similar to that advocated in the amendment. In other words,we have advocated that the government should institute a system of approved farm storage so that on that grain held in storage the government could make advances and at the same time pay storage on the grain. Provided that proper precautions were taken there would be little risk in such a proposition. For instance, we have to guide us the experience in the United States with respect to farm storage. The government could specify the type of storage upon which storage will be paid. The storage bins could be properly fire-guarded, fenced and insured, and such action would no doubt prevent a great deal of congestion in the elevators. At the present time I think we all realize that it would not be possible to insist upon the same precautions as would be required under a system of approved storage, inasmuch as we have the situation facing us now and the government have not already instituted a program of farm storage. The situation being what it is, I think the government should be prepared to make advances against all grain stored on the farms, provided of course that it is properly stored. I am not advocating that.

advances should be made on grain piled up in heaps on the ground or in the fields, but rather on grain that the farmers have moved into some kind of building on the farm, so that it can be properly looked after. 1 am not advocating either that advances should be made on grain that is not in a marketable condition; that is to say, if the grain is already damp so that it has gone into a solid lump and cannot be marketed, we are of course not suggesting that advances should be made under those circumstances.
No doubt the government might say: How would the government know just what the situation was with regard to any particular farmer's grain? My reply would be that they could utilize field men on the spot; they could, use the district agriculturists; they could use men from the Department of Veterans Affairs; they could use local committees of farmers and municipal officials. In many cases it would be quite possible to take the word of the farmer himself where that man is recognized as having a sound standing.
I was greatly interested in the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). I heard the statement over the radio, I think it was last night or the night before, to the effect that he had told the farmers at the annual wheat pool convention that at this session of parliament legislation would be introduced for the purpose of making advances to farmers against grain that had not even been threshed. I was surprised that we had not heard anything about it here in the house. I was certainly even more greatly surprised when the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) gave the reply he did to the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), because the Minister of Trade and Commerce is not an irresponsible individual. We all hold him in very high regard. Surely before the minister would make a statement like that he must have consulted the government. Surely he did not go out to Alberta and make a statement of that kind without having consulted either the Prime Minister or the rest of the cabinet ministers. Therefore I take it that when he made that statement it was apparently the result of conversations he had had with certain people, that he was summing up the situation as he found it; and then he made a statement to the convention.
The hon. member for Springfield said we should not be in too much of a hurry; that thousands of acres are being harvested every day. Evidently he did not read the amendment. The amendment applies only to grain
The Address-Mr. Quelch in storage. It does not apply to grain that has not been harvested. The amendment reads:
This house regrets, however, that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to make provision for the immediate payment to producers of 75 per cent of the initial price of farm stored grain.
Therefore it would have to be harvested before the amendment could become operative. On the other hand, whilst the hon. member says thousands of acres are being harvested, I would like to assure him that thousands and thousands of acres will never be harvested until next spring. There are large areas over which the snow fell almost continually for the best part of a month, and heavy winds whipped that snow into deep drifts. Even if you have many days of warm weather these drifts will remain, making it impossible to harvest the grain.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Go to your Premier Manning.


Victor Quelch: Evidently the Minister of Trade and Commerce has a little more realistic understanding of the situation than the hon. member for Springfield, or he would not have made the statement he did. He realizes the extreme urgency of the situation, and he also realizes the tremendous difficulties facing the farmer, who has had the expense of a year's farming operations and now has his crop in the position where he cannot market it. You would not like to work for a year without wages and wait until the end of the year before you got your money. That is the situation many farmers are finding themselves in today.
I realize that advances against grain in the swath would have to be comparatively small. They would not be on the same scale as that advocated in the amendment, because there is a great deal of grain in the swath today that probably never will be harvested. It all depends upon the locations. Swaths in low lying lands, which are subject to flooding, will be in this position. The crop will be destroyed in the spring. On the other hand if the swaths are on land that drains well in the spring, provided it is well fenced so the stock will not get in and destroy it, it will fare better. There is every reason to expect that the crop will come off in the spring in exceptionally good shape. I know that last year many farms in the eastern part of the constituency that I represent came out in this way. Fifty per cent of the crop was left in swath last year, and the majority of that grain came through in really good shape. I heard from many local elevator men that actually the grain that was out in the

The Address-Mr. Quelch swath last winter was delivered to the elevators in better shape than the grain that was delivered in the fall.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: That is quite correct.


Victor Quelch: For the simple reason that it was dry. I realize you could not just say you are going to make an advance to every farmer who has crop out under the snow. You would have to investigate the situation to see whether the land would be drained and make sure it was protected against stock, because it takes only a small bunch of cattle in a field of swath grain to destroy it totally so far as harvesting is concerned.
I realize that making loans against grain in the swath would not be an easy problem to handle. I believe it could be handled through the chartered banks. The government could guarantee the chartered banks up to a certain percentage of their losses, as they did under the farm improvement loan legislation or the veterans legislation. Then it would be up to the banks to investigate the situation. It would not mean that the banker himself would have to go and look at the field. He could find out through other farmers just what the situation was, and he would have a pretty good idea in the first place of what kind of land the farmer had who had his crop under the snow. I am satisfied that if care was taken the losses would be very small, provided the advance was not a large percentage of the estimated value of the crop. You would have to allow for shrinkage and for deterioration. If that were done I do not think the banks would face the danger of any large loss, provided they were guaranteed up to 5 or 10 per cent of the aggregate loss, as was done under the farm improvement loan legislation. I do not think there would be much danger of their sustaining losses. I am satisfied if that were the situation they would be very careful to see that loans were made only where there was a reasonable expectation of their being able to get payment in the spring.
To these farmers this is a very difficult situation. They have had all the expenses of the summer. Many of them owe store bills; many of them owe for gasoline. They have to finance the expenses of the winter; and then, more important still, they have to finance seeding operations. At least 80 per cent of the grain will be useless for seeding.
I believe you can say that 100 per cent of the grain that is out in the swath would not be suitable for seed in the spring. If it were seeded in the spring there would be very poor germination. If the farmers cannot get help elsewhere many of them will try to
[Mr. Quelch.l

thresh enough in the spring to use for seed. If that is done there will be the danger of a very poor crop next year. Steps will have to be taken to see that suitable seed is made available. It depends upon the spring whether they can harvest that grain before seeding. If we have a very early spring it may be possible for harvest operations to be well under way before seeding starts; but if we have one of those late, wet springs where harvesting operations cannot start until after seeding, then we are going to have a situation where there will be a very heavy weed growth in the swath, and in many cases that will mean no harvesting of the swath at all. Even if it is harvested it will be in a very mouldy condition.
Some mention was made that assistance should be given under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. I understand that assistance has been given on that basis. This assistance has been given where crops remained in the swath all winter, but then due to a certain situation developing the farmer was not able to harvest that crop and it was a total loss. I understand that payment has been made to these farmers under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, but that no action is taken until all possible chance of being able to harvest that crop is gone. Once the officials recognize that the crop is lost, assistance is given, I had one or two cases where action was taken, and I understand that assistance was given. As a matter of fact I had a peculiar condition referred to me. There were two townships where a large percentage of the grain had been left out all winter. That grain was still in the swath at the end of June. Then a hail storm came along and hailed out last year's crop and also this year's crop. The farmer had two crops hailed out by the one hail storm. Application was made for assistance under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and assistance was granted to those farmers, but I think for only one crop, not two.
Something has been said about the international wheat agreement. It will be remembered that in 1948, when the international wheat agreement was before the house, we in this group urged the government to advocate that in setting the floor and the ceiling for the four years in advance they should tie that floor and ceiling to the general price level, so that if the price level went up the ceiling and the floor would go up, and if the price level went down the floor and the ceiling would go down. It seems to me that such a proposition is fair to both the producer and the consumer. It would mean that in shipping grain abroad, if the price level went

up we would get a higher price for our wheat but pay more for our imports. On the other hand, if the price level went down we would get less for our wheat but we would pay less for our imports, so in that case you would be establishing a balance between the value of our exported wheat, and imports taken in exchange, whether the price level went up or down.
I never could understand why the government considered it necessary to tie the domestic price of wheat to the international wheat agreement. I should hope that the domestic price of wheat could be tied to the price of class II wheat. If the price under the international wheat agreement today represented a fair price with regard to the general price level then I would not suggest that the domestic price should not be in line with the international wheat agreement; but the cost of living has gone up 34 points since we set this price under the international wheat agreement. Therefore the price of wheat under the agreement has been tied down too low. That being the situation, I think we could very well have set the domestic price in line with the price of class II wheat.
The international wheat agreement expires next year, so I hope when our representatives go to sign the next agreement they may take a very strong stand on this question of tying future prices to the general price level. In other words I hope our representatives will advocate that an escalator clause be inserted so the price will go up and down with the general price level.
In closing I wish to make clear that I am a very strong, 100 per cent supporter of the wheat board. In spite of the disagreement that has taken place regarding the British wheat agreement, the international wheat agreement, and the domestic price, I am satisfied that at least 99 per cent of the farmers of western Canada will still support the idea of the wheat board. Had we not had the wheat board, what would have been the situation last year when we had the tremendous unmarketable surplus of low-grade wheat? No doubt the price would have gone right down to the bottom. Somebody would have made a killing, but it would not have been the farmer. As it is now, it is being handled in an orderly way, and the majority of farmers are well satisfied with the final payment on the 1950 crop, within the range of the present agreement. As I say, they still feel that the domestic price should have been tied to the price of class II wheat.
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this amendment perhaps I should first read it:
That the following words be added to the address:
"This house regrets, however, that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to make provision for the immediate payment to producers of 75 per cent of the initial price of farm stored grain."
As yet few arguments have been advanced by members supporting the government regarding this matter which is of transcendent importance to many thousands of western farmers. One made passing reference to the effect that this amendment represented a condition of mind, and that it has no connection with the situation prevailing on the prairies. I think it might be well to refer to the Canadian Press dispatch quoted in the Winnipeg Free Press of December 1, wherein the situation is set forth, although, sir, having regard to the number of occasions recently that Canadian Press dispatches have been disavowed by ministers of the crown, one does feel some diffidence in quoting them. However, this one has not yet been denied and so I presume it will be in order to quote it. After stating what the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) had said in Calgary-and it is a matter of no insignificance to point out that a by-election is taking place in Calgary, which may have had some connection with the visit of the minister to that city-the following appears:
Alberta farmers have some 230 million bushels of grain lying under the snow.
That is a very serious situation.
In Saskatchewan about 90 million bushels of wheat and 14 per cent of the coarse grain crop are unharvested. Manitoba has about $8 million worth of grain under snow.
Then it says:
A recent survey indicated as much as 75 per cent of the crop threshed or unthreshed remained in the farmers hands.
Then it gave the reasons the Minister of Trade and Commerce was in the west, that is so far as Winnipeg is concerned. It said:
Mr. Howe is making a swing through the west to size up the situation. He discussed the question of interim financial aid with the Canadian wheat board and the board of grain commissioners in Winnipeg earlier in the week.
Hon. members will recall that the other day when I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce what could be done in this regard he indicated that he intended to spend some days in the western provinces with the very proper end in view of endeavouring to arrive at a conclusion as to what could be done in order to meet a dire and serious situation. He has been out there now for several days.

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker Today we had a curious thing happen when the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) answered as he did upon being asked a question that affects so many farmers on the western plains. So there may be no mistake about what took place, the record shows that the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) said-and I read only the pertinent parts:
In view of the radio news reports concerning an announcement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in the west over the weekend, can the Prime Minister say whether legislation will be introduced at this session to provide payments on farm stored grain and financial assistance to farmers with grain out under the snow?
That was the question the farmers of the western provinces have been asking, and to which they ask that consideration be given. The Prime Minister answered-and Hansard cannot record the inflection of the voice:
No, Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to do that. I have already told the hon. member that we were having the matter investigated, and that just as soon as we had come to a decision I would hasten to apprise the house of it. It will not be expedited by repeating the question. I will not forget his anxiety to have the information, and will bring it down just as soon as we can reach a conclusion about it.
I presume the "we" to whom the Prime Minister referred was the cabinet of this country. Certainly the Prime Minister did not know what the Minister of Trade and Commerce apparently knew when he announced the policy, announced the decision, and announced what parliament was going to do. He did it on Friday last, and this is what he said:
Right Hon. C. D. Howe, trade minister, said Friday that financial aid for distressed prairie grain growers is in prospect for early in the new year.
The minister, in charge of grain marketing, said at the annual meeting of the Alberta wheat pool he is prepared to recommend legislation for interim credit for farmers with unthreshed grain and those who, for one reason or another, have been unable to deliver their grain to country elevators.
It is strange that on a matter such as this a recommendation to be made by the minister in charge should not be known to the Prime Minister three days later. Then the article goes on:
Mr. Howe said the legislation would be introduced at the current session of parliament in the expectation the plan would be in operation by the early part of January.
Parliament, according to the minister, is going to have this legislation at the present session. It will be introduced. The expenditures of money will be made early in the new year. Yet today we have the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) announcing that no decision has been arrived at, that the matter is being investigated, and that just as soon as they come to a decision parliament will be informed of it. Sir, this is but another 
example of why so often the cabinet of this country is described as C. D. Howe and Company. He makes the announcements, he says what parliament is going to do and the Prime Minister is not aware of that fact. I wonder what the decision will be when the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) arrives back in Ottawa. I remember so well reading in Hansard of March 20 last the description by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) of the happy relations between the Prime Minister, the Minister of Trade and Commerce and himself. What the Minister of Agriculture said on that occasion would lead me to believe that if the Prime Minister has the final say we are not going to get anything in western Canada, because what the Minister of Agriculture said on March 20 last, after describing himself and the Minister of Trade and Commerce is to be found at page 1448 of Hansard:
And, Mr. Chairman, there would be a number of reasons as to why we would not.
That is why they would not become members of the C.C.F. or Conservative parties.
We are both quite satisfied to be where we are. One of the reasons why we are satisfied to be where we are is that we both know that we can afford to make statements knowing that we might be incorrect because we have a leader who does not make many mistakes; and we are quite satisfied that when we present arguments upon which we do not fully agree, if we present them clearly enough and set forth all the facts, the judicial mind of the leader of the Liberal party and the leader of the government will so sift out the facts and so express the conclusions that, when he has expressed them, we can both agree with the decision that he has arrived at.


James Garfield Gardiner: Don't you wish you had a leader like that?


John George Diefenbaker: I was pointing out that the Prime Minister has already given the answer, and that answer is that no decision has been made. On the other hand, the Minister of Trade and Commerce has stated in Calgary that a decision has been made.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, no; he said he was going to recommend.


James Joseph McCann: He said he was prepared to recommend.


John George Diefenbaker: If my hon. friends would listen, the Minister of Trade and Commerce said that legislation would be introduced at the current session of parliament-


James Joseph McCann: Read ahead of that.


John George Diefenbaker: -in the expectation that the plan would be in operation-


George James McIlraith: Read the paragraph before that.


James Joseph McCann: Read the paragraph before that. It is right there; you have the paper there.

The Address-Mr. Dicfenbaker


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, none of them know about it over there. Apparently this was a surprise to them, but this is not the first time the Minister of Trade and Commerce has surprised them with decisions he has made irrespective of the cabinet. It says that legislation will be introduced at the current session.


George James McIlraith: Read the paragraph before that.


John George Diefenbaker: I will give my hon. friend the opportunity. I have read it twice now, and apparently he does not understand it yet.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


John George Diefenbaker: Is it not passing strange, Mr. Speaker, that they all start to chatter at once? I point out again that the Minister of Trade and Commerce said the legislation would be introduced at the present session and that for the next few weeks final payments totalling $130 million-


George James McIlraith: Would my hon. friend permit a question?


John George Diefenbaker: -from the wheat board's 1950-51 pool would tide farmers over.


George James McIlraith: Would my hon. friend permit a question?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


George James McIlraith: Would the hon. member mind telling the house which paragraph of the Canadian Press dispatch, as found in the Winnipeg Free Press, he is reading?


John George Diefenbaker: I read every paragraph and if my hon. friend cannot count that is not my responsibility.


James Sinclair: That is big stuff with a jury of farmers, but it is not very good here.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the observation?


James Sinclair: I say that is big stuff with a jury of farmers, but it is not very good here.


John George Diefenbaker: That is an observation that will remain unanswered. Coming from my hon. friend the answer is clear.


Mr. McLure:: General Motors will reply to him.


George James McIlraith: It is paragraph 3.


Gordon Graydon: Get yourself a used car, Jimmy.


John George Diefenbaker: I was pointing out the fact that while the western farmer is asking for action one minister of the cabinet says he is going to get action and the Prime Minister, who ought to know, says that the matter is still under consideration.


James Joseph McCann: What about it?


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad this amendment has been introduced so that western members may be able to face a jury of western farmers on their votes on the amendment. The hon. member speaks with disparagement of a jury of farmers. If the farmers of western Canada get an opportunity as a jury they will speak as they did in Winnipeg, as they did in Brandon and other constituencies in the recent by-elections.


James Sinclair: It took a little while to think that one up.


John George Diefenbaker: Having dealt with that phase-


James Sinclair: One paragraph.


John George Diefenbaker: -I again ask that the government give serious consideration to this matter and at this session provide what is asked for in the amendment. I care not whether it be an advance to the extent of 75 per cent of the value or whether it be the suggestion I put before the house some time ago of $10 per acre. The farmers of western Canada today are asking for assistance and they have a right to receive it. What has happened in connection with the lack of storage facilities is and has been the responsibility of this government. Every minister of the government knew as far back as last June or July how serious the situation would be with the elevators in western Canada glutted with wheat that was unsaleable by reason of its low grade. Week after week the Minister of Trade and1 Commerce has been advising the people of Canada in the most optimistic manner possible that all was well. I have before me the Western Producer of November 29. It tells the story in so far as the wheat pool is concerned. It has this to say:
Although harvesting operations have been virtually at a standstill during all of November, country elevator congestion has shown little improvement during the month. At the end of last week stocks in store in Saskatchewan pool country elevators totalled 39,926,000 bushels as compared with 40,363,000 bushels one week ago and 41,589,000 bushels on October 31.
In other words, the situation has improved but little.
Five hundred and eighty-seven pool elevators were reported filled with grain last week. A week earlier there were 606 plugged elevators and at October 31, when congestion was at its peak, the number was 663.
I ask that something be done in this matter in order to raise the morale of the western farmer. But the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has said over and over again in this house that all is well. Word has gone forth and every member from Saskatchewan must have received letters from his constituents pointing out the seriousness of the situation, paiticularly on Canadian Pacific
1552	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker lines. Mention has been made by several hon. members of the fact that the situation on Canadian Pacific lines is serious. It is as serious today as it was several weeks ago. Farmers in those areas where the quota has been increased found that elevators became filled. As a result many of them have been unable to market their wheat, and in a large majority of cases they have been able to market only ten or fifteen per cent.
This is a most serious situation that faces us. All we are asking, and all that those who come from the prairies have continued to ask, is that something be done to assure that congestion shall be dissipated as far as possible and that provision be made to transfer tough grain to the drying plants. We ask also that advances be made for grain on the farms, both for storage and as a payment in accordance with the amendment. These are the things the western farmer is demanding. These are the things that I believe are worthy of the consideration of this house.
In order to fill the two vacancies which I believe still exist on the wheat board I suggest that appointments be made of actual producers. Farmers are requesting that there be a larger producer representation on the board. Nothing would be more beneficial than for the Minister of Agriculture to insist that western farmers in production and recognized as leaders be appointed to the two vacancies on the wheat board.
Second, the amendment refers to a temporary situation created by the early snows of this year. Another thing the western farmer is asking is that wheat sold for domestic consumption be not sold at the present rate whereby the farmer loses from 40 to 50 cents per bushel, but that it be sold at a pai'ity price.
Third, in order to assure parity the farmers are asking that the Agricultural Prices Support Act be amended to provide floor prices for cereal grains. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) referred to the plebiscite in Manitoba and indicated that farmers generally were satisfied. My own impression is that farmers want a larger direct producer representation on the board, and they want parity prices for domestic sale. If these two things were granted at least two major subjects of discontent would be removed.
Having said that I cannot take any other stand than to support the amendment. It provides an opportunity to hon. members to call upon the government for action. We have waited from week to week since this session began in the hope that something would be done to alleviate the conditions that 

prevail on the prairies. It is only a matter of two weeks at the very most until the end of the session, yet we had a statement today by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) that held out no hope that action will be taken at the present session. On the other hand we had the statement made in Calgary on Friday by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that action will be taken. My hope is that at this time the wishes of the Minister of Trade and Commerce will take precedence over the unhopeful statement made today by the Prime Minister and that before this session is over legislation will be introduced to provide for an advance payment to farmers, first, who have their wheat under the snow and, second, who have completed their threshing operations but are unable to market a reasonable portion of their grain because of the freight car congestions.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Speaker, as I sat and listened to hon. members speak, I wondered how soon this debate will close. There are many important resolutions on the order paper. Wheat is important, but some of these resolutions concern matters just as important or perhaps more important than wheat. I am not a bit concerned about what the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) did or did not say. He is not in the house this evening, but when he comes back he will be able to answer for himself and what he says will be a credit to the government.


Mr. J. A. Ross (Souris):: Mr. Speaker, the amendment before the house reads:
This house regrets, however, that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to make provision for the immediate payment to producers of 75 per cent of the initial price of farm stored grain.
When the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) answered the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) as he did this afternoon I was very disappointed. I had read the statements carried in the daily press of western Canada, particularly the Winnipeg Free Press and the Winnipeg Tribune, which statements have been quoted in this debate already, in which the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), the minister responsible for the handling and marketing of wheat in this country, is reported to have stated emphatically at a meeting in Calgary that the farmers could expect aid early in 1952 and that legislation would be introduced during this session of parliament to provide for that financial assistance. When the Prime Minister was asked this afternoon if that statement was correct his answer was "No", and he went on to say that the matter was under consideration and he could make no further statement at this time.

That is a strange set of circumstances in a democracy such at this. As I say, I was very disappointed. As has been so well pointed out by previous speakers, this is a real emergency for many thousands of farmers on the prairies. If you could travel out among these people you would find that many are having to depend upon local people who are ready to extend credit in order that they may provide for their families this winter. This, in turn, has placed these people in an extremely unsatisfactory financial position. These grain producers find themselves in a very difficult set of circumstances. I am amazed that people are not so much concerned about the plight of these farmers at this time, because it is serious. I believe this resolution is well worded.
For some years past I have travelled into the United States of America studying the operation and administration of their agricultural set-up, and the manner in which that government guaranteed to wheat producers what is termed 90 per cent of parity. Today a farmer can obtain on properly stored grain a loan of up to 90 per cent of parity which, for this year's crop, is on the basis of $2.18 per bushel. Compared to what we receive for grain, that is a good price. As I understand the legislation, coupled with that the farmers are allowed a storage fee until next April. After receiving payment the farmer can decide that the government can have the wheat, or he can repay the loan and carry on. While the United States operates under the international wheat agreement just as we do, their farmers are subsidized for the difference between the world price and the price under the international wheat agreement. It costs the treasury of the United States a considerable sum to pay that difference.
The previous speaker has pointed out that, notwithstanding the many millions of dollars the western farmers have lost in the past four or five years under agreements concluded by this government, they are today subsidizing the consumers of Canada by over 50 cents a bushel. Like the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) I am one of those who believe that the consumers of Canada should pay the prevailing price for class II wheat rather than the price set under this international wheat agreement. These wheat producers have had a very unfair burden saddled upon them by the government of the day. I want to protest as strongly as I can. I have raised this issue in the house at every opportunity, but instead of the price getting closer to what it should be the gap is widening as time passes. These people should not be called upon to subsidize the consumer.
I should like to say a word on a point which was raised by the hon. member for Melfort
The Address-Mr. J. A. Ross (Mr. Wright). It is connected with grain drying equipment. I happen to live close to the North Dakota border and some of the farmers along that border have this grain drying equipment. As was pointed out, this machine costs between $12,000 and $14,000. It was doing a satisfactory job in taking the moisture out of that grain. Like the hon. member I, too, had correspondence from co-operatives and individuals requesting me to interview the Department of National Revenue about obtaining this equipment from the United States. Apparently Minneapolis is the chief centre turning out this machine, and I understand it is not available in Canada. I carried on some negotiations with the deputy minister and other members of the department. Finally the minister made a statement in this house pointing out that he was prepared to recommend to cabinet that these machines be brought in on a lease basis for about one-sixtieth of the duty per month. The duty on these machines amounts to 22J per cent plus a sales tax of 10 per cent, and all that can be set aside if an individual imports this equipment. When the minister made his statement I asked him, and it is on Hansard, whether the same consideration would be extended to a co-operative or a corporation, and he said no. I believe that is quite improper. Some consideration should be given to the cost of the machine and the amount of grain that can be cleaned, because it would have to be a co-operative effort.
Personally I have some fault to find with the distribution of feed wheat and the low grade wheat from last year's crop. I believe the asking price for that grade of grain has been out of all proportion to the price obtained for milling qualities of wheat. Because of this asking price there was a large carry-over of this grade of wheat as of July 31 of this year. I think the board, on behalf of the government, should have made a greater effort to get rid of that low grade wheat for feed purposes, thus making more storage space available for the milling grades of wheat today. For two years now this has been an extremely difficult problem in the handling and storing of grain. For some reason, in our province and the provinces to the west there has been much greater difficulty in getting a proper allocation of box cars on the Canadian Pacific lines than on the Canadian National lines. I do not know why that situation has existed, but it has been difficult. While I was not prepared to speak on this subject at this time, I want to say that it is a matter of deep concern. I cannot impress too strongly upon the government the difficulty for many thousands of farmers in the prairie provinces. A loan could easily be made to these farmers to

The Address-Mr. Low cover operating expenses and help them provide for their families during the coming winter. I cannot see why this amendment is unsound. It mentions 75 per cent of the value of the grain in storage, and I do not believe there is any great gamble in that. True enough it would be a considerable undertaking from an administrative point of view, but I would support the amendment.
Let me repeat that when you have prosperous agriculture in this country, then everyone else does well. It is true that today many people are prosperous, but these farmers are suffering great hardships. I would hope that the government would decide to accept this amendment. Again I say how disappointed I was at the difference in the attitude of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and that of the responsible minister as reported in the press over the week end1.


Solon Earl Low: I have waited to give the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) an opportunity to say something about this resolution. I thought it was a subject of such great importance that at least the Minister of Agriculture would have made an announcement of some sort. Of course the Prime Minister came in and the Minister of Agriculture stayed put.
I imagine it is occurring to the Prime Minister that he should brief his boys before they go off on a trip. I know that if I had had experiences similar to those of the Prime Minister during the past two or three weeks I would get them together and say: Boys, where are you going? We are going up to Calgary to see what is going on up there. Why? We want to see what the people are doing and find out just what the crop situation is. It might be that incidentally we will have a word to say about the by-election. All right, but maybe you had better let me know what you are going to say when you go out there, because I want to be able to say the same thing in parliament; because if this sort of thing goes on there will not be any such thing as cabinet solidarity. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker that it might be a right good thing to have this amendment debated thoroughly and perhaps to have it held over until Wednesday of this week, possibly until the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) gets back, so the Prime Minister can call his men together and decide just exactly what is what. Then maybe we can get an intelligent vote on the matter. Or in the alternative, perhaps the Prime Minister or one of his ministers can make an announcement in this house, where announcements of the kind should be made and where we can [Mr. Ross (Souris).I

give them the proper applause. You see, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Trade and Commerce is away out west, and he has made an announcement of great importance to the farmers of western Canada; but we fellows here cannot pat him on the back. I do not think that the situation is fair and just to the members from western Canada; not at all.
As I say, I was quite disappointed that we did not hear from the front benches tonight something in connection with such important legislation. I look upon this matter as being of tremendous importance. What has happened is this, Mr. Speaker. Our big-hearted Minister of Trade and Commerce went out west; and whatever he went out for, he did happen to see what the farmers are suffering today. They doubtless took him out into some of these fields around Calgary.


An hon. Member:: Calgary West.


Solon Earl Low: And doubtless they showed him, field after field, thousands of acres of wonderful crop in the swath and down on the ground. No doubt they showed him crops that were matted, twisted and pressed into the soil by a succession of snow, rain, frost and what not, that they probably will not be able to harvest until spring, if they get it harvested then. They probably took the Minister of Trade and Commerce out to some of the elevators and showed him exactly what is going on there, and what a terrific problem these elevators have to handle the wheat successfully, to give the farmers storage space for their tremendous crops, and to process the grain without grain dryers. They see it rotting, matting together, musting and I suppose much of it will be rendered unfit for milling purposes.
Then they probably took the Minister of Trade and Commerce out to talk to some of the farmers individually. When I say "they" I am speaking now of the boys in Calgary West. They wanted him to see the facts, and they talked to some of these farmers out there individually and the farmers told this story: Look here, Mr. Minister, we have got to get a fence fixed up here, and a good one. You fellows are just about to let the calves out. There is quite a gap here, the biggest gap that you have left. The gap is created by the fact that our farmers throughout this area just have not anything in their pockets to jingle, and the reason is that they have not been able to market any of their crops this year. Not having been able to market any of their crops they cannot look forward to giving you fellows any help out in Calgary

West or anywhere else for that matter. Furthermore, if we are going to keep those doggone Tories out of here, you have to do something and do it fast.
So, Mr. Speaker, as I said, the Minister of Trade and Commerce is there. He is a big-heartedi fellow and his sympathies would be right there with the farmers. It is natural that, when they got him back into the meeting place that night, he should stand up on the platform and say to that audience: We have to do something for these farmers, and I am going to suggest right now that this government, at the session that is now going on down in Ottawa, put through a bill to provide for farm storage advances and get it out before the first of the year or before Christmas, because you have to get some Christmas presents.
In all seriousness, Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure that the Minister of Trade and Commerce on this trip saw a great many things out there that he did not previously even imagine. I am quite certain in my own mind that in whatever he said out there he was giving expression to what he thought ought to be done. That is the important thing. He stated what he thought ought to be done. It may have been interpreted by the press as an expression of government policy. I am not saying anything as to that. But the fact remains that out of his firsthand knowledge -as a result of seeing conditions, not just hearing about them-he made up his mind that something ought to be done, he made that statement, and the press carried it.
I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce had a great deal of courage, even if he did not get in touch with the boys back home and the boss, and I commend him for it. But there is this that must be said, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is right, and the boys back here are not up in the harness by any means. Our people out west are facing a disastrous situation. It is not that we love to come and just plead for handouts; not at all. But how in the world can we, the farmers of western Canada, be expected to do the job that it is expected we will do, in producing all the food that will be required by our Canadian people and fill the demands of the people of other nations, unless facilities are set up to save what we produce?
Just imagine the situation. Right there in the province of Alberta we had prospects of a 170 million bushel wheat crop this fall. It looked to be the most beautiful prospect we have had in twenty-five or thirty years. Then disaster overtook us; and that was not all. It was not just disaster caused by the
The Address-Mr. Low elements. We found that another disaster or two befell us. When we did get the crop down, the elevator space was soon plugged and the farmers could not get any more in. Then they had to thresh their crops in the fields and put them up in conical piles, or into straw stacks, or surround them with snow fences or almost anything to keep them together, pleading for cars all the time. There again was another disaster. Something happened so that the cars did not get out there with which to ship this grain. In many areas -and I will take my own area, the Peace river country, as an example-there were millions of bushels of excellent milling wheat. What this country needed was milling wheat, and what the other countries needed was milling wheat. Cargo vessels were coming into the harbour at Vancouver and in the eastern part of this continent ready for milling wheat, and they could not get it. They had to sail away without it because the wheat was not there in port. The question is, why was it not there? Cars were being used for something else. I do not know what it was.
The people in the Peace river country were not able to get their wheat out-that is, that milling wheat they had taken to the elevators -and they were not able to get much in because the storage space up in that country is not great. Somehow or other few people have got into their heads the fact that this Peace river country has now grown to be a great inland empire, one of the great food-producing areas of the world. They also forget that it is four or five hundred miles removed from any storage centres, and that there is today a great long back haul of five hundred miles in order to get the grain on to the main line so it can be shipped to the coast. We were completely forgotten this year and the wheat lay there. We complained about it; we pleaded for cars and for storage space; but there was nothing doing. So today the farmers are not able to get anything for their crops, to provide for their families, to pay their debts and get materials and machinery repaired and ready for another crop season. This does not give them very much hope or optimism.
I suggest that the government's responsibility is twofold. In the first place, I think the government should have been looking ahead to years like this, and should have provided strategically placed storage facilities. They should have been assisting farmers to provide storage facilities on their own farms. In the Peace river country I think we have a logical claim for a $1 million or $2 million government elevator for storage and for processing purposes, to see that our grain up-in that country is not wasted; that when we

The Address-Mr. Low *do produce these big crops we can get them into the elevators so that they may be saved and not wasted. Any grain that comes into elevators with a moisture content of 17, 18 or 20 per cent is in danger. Everybody knows that. I understand that this year a good [DOT]deal of it is running up to 25 or 28 per cent moisture content. Well, it seems tragic, in the light of the world need for food products, to let that grain remain in that condition and take a chance on it spoiling so nobody can use it, especially in a country like this where we have these unusual seasons and this year so little milling wheat. Therefore it seems to me the government's responsibility is to see to it that complete storage is arranged for, and that the farmers are assisted to get storage facilities on their own farms.
It seems to me the second responsibility is this. Whenever disasters like this overtake the farmers, the government should get in there as quickly as possible and see to it that some advance is made on properly stored grain, as is called for in this resolution, so the farmers can pay their obligations, take care of their families and look forward to a crop year next year free perhaps from encumbrances, free from worry. The hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) has just reminded me of something else that is tremendously important in this whole business. The man who is usually forgotten in all of these tragic years is the unsecured creditor, the local merchant. He is the fellow who takes it in the neck, because he has been financing the farmers in the communities pretty well through the whole year, expecting that when the crop was sold he would be able to get some return. Well, where are the small merchants this year? They are holding the bag. A good many of them are going -out of business, Mr. Speaker. I am told there are more business failures in Canada just now than there were during the hungry thirties. Why? Simply because of the tragic [DOT]situation that has developed in western *Canada. These farmers simply cannot get money for their crops; therefore they cannot pay their obligations. Prices are high. There are restrictions on supplies, restrictions on credit purchases. All that is hitting the storekeepers and hitting them hard. They are the backbone of our communities, and we cannot overlook them. I plead with the government to take this appeal that is being made most seriously, and get in and formulate a policy and announce it so that our people in western Canada will not be kept so confused.
I can imagine what is going to appear in the press tomorrow morning. They will have the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) in one column and what the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said today in another column, and the farmers of western Canada will feel that they are meeting themselves coming back. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, there will be a great many of the juries of farmers referred to by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair), a good many juries around the hot stove in these little business places that I have been talking about who will weigh his statement well and bear in mind that there was some sort of little aspersion oast by what he said. I will tell you right now that the hon. member for Coast-Capilano has never been able to get together a jury that will do a better job than a jury of farmers. If any of the people out in the west country that I know about are called upon to be tried before their peers it is usually the farmers that they look to for justice, and they get it.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: They did a good job in the
Manitoba grain referendum.


Solon Earl Low: I see that. it is close to ten
o'clock, Mr. Speaker. Before I launch into the other subject about which I want to say something, I would ask you to call it ten o'clock, and I shall move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Low the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will take up as the first item the resolution in the name of the Minister of Transport to provide a deep waterway between Montreal and Lake Erie and to create a corporation to be called "the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority"; then third reading of Bill No. 24, to amend the Public Printing and Stationery Act; Bill No. 30, to amend the Supreme Court Act and Bill No. 31, to amend the Exchequer Court Act.
Then we will take up the resolution in the name of the Secretary of State to amend the Civil Service Act, and the other resolution in the name of the same minister to amend the Dominion Elections Act.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on November 2, 1951.
15S7
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, December 4, 1951